Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the ease of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Great Western Railway Bill.
Southern Railway Bill.

Bills committed.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Gillingham Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (HIGH COMMISSIONER).

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the proposed appointment of a High Commissioner to represent the British Government in Australia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LOAD LINES.

Mr. ALBERY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as regards the ratification of the International Convention providing for the international enforcement of load lines?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): It is proposed to ratify the International Convention on Load Lines so soon as it has been possible to pass the necessary legislation to enable effect to be given to it.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when this legislation will be introduced?

Mr. GRAHAM: We would like to see the Safety of Life and the Load Line Conventions embodied in one Bill, and promoted at an early date in the other House.

PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the finding of the Board of Trade inquiry on the master of the steamship "Highland Hope" for the wreck of that vessel on 19th November last, in which attention was called to the age of this gentleman and strictures passed on the owners for employing him at over the age of 70 years; if he is aware that there are a number of masters in command of British ships whose age makes it desirable that they should retire, but that owing to the absence of any pension or superannuation scheme in many companies they are not able to retire for financial reasons; and whether any progress is being made in the adoption of a general pension scheme for the Royal Mercantile Marine?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the second part. For the rest, I am not aware that any proposals are at
present under consideration for a special pension scheme for the mercantile marine apart from the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund with which I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend is acquainted.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the last part of my question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of the shipping companies and of the officers are in agreement as regards a pensions scheme, but a minority hold out; and will he look into the question again?

Mr. GRAHAM: It may be as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, but, plainly, if there were any question of compelling a minority to come into a scheme, that could not be done without legislation, and I am not in a position at the moment to make any promise in that respect.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by his answer he gave the impression that he did not know of these facts; and will he look into the question again with a view to legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM: I trust that I did not convey an impression of that kind. As a matter of fact, I was familiar with the questions put by my hon. and gallant Friend in the last Parliament.

ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the published accounts of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for 1926 to 1929 showed profits from controlled subsidiary concerns which had been neither earned nor received, but that losses had in fact been incurred, and seeing that the auditors certified the correctness of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company's accounts for those four years, he will take legislative steps to ensure that auditors shall, in future, specifically exclude from their certification such entries in accounts as have not been certified by the auditors who certify the accounts in which such entries are embodied?

Mr. EDE: 10 and 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the failure of the auditors certificates on the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company's accounts to inform shareholders of the non-receipt of money-which was proved after investigation not to have been received, although brought into the certified accounts of the company, he will consult the various accountants' societies for the purpose of drawing up a formula to ensure that auditors' certificates on published accounts shall become effective as a protection to the public;
(2) whether, pending the framing of a form of certificate that shall guarantee to the public that the accounts represent the actual financial condition of concerns operating under the Companies Act, 1929, or under royal charter, he will take steps to forbid the attachment of an auditor's certificate to such accounts?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the House will be aware, all the circumstances in connection with the affairs of this company are being investigated by the voting trustees, and no statement can usefully be made at the present time. Meanwhile I would point out that the form of auditor's report which is prescribed by Section 134 of the Companies Act, 1929 was considered by the Company Law Amendment Committee which included three eminent accountants, and that committee reported in 1926 against any amendment of the law as it then stood and now stands. It is open to the auditors to make in their report any observations which they think fit, and under the present Companies Act the auditors are given the right to attend any general meeting at which accounts examined or reported on by them are to be laid before the company and to make any statement or explanation they desire in respect of the accounts. As regards the manner in which items relating to its subsidiary companies have to be dealt with in the balance sheet of a company, I would refer to the new provisions which are contained in Sections 125 and 126 of the Companies Act, 1929, especially Subsection 2 from the latter section.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Is it proposed to allow the company to retain the charter while directors who are responsible for the present position remain members of the board?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I could make no statement regarding that matter this afternoon, because the work of the voting trustees and others will have to be completed, and the hon. Member will also recall that yesterday the Attorney-General said that everything would be considered by him at the appropriate point.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the matters under review include the legal liability of the auditors for the correctness of their certificates?

Mr. GRAHAM: That also is a point which plainly I could not deal with in reply to a supplementary question in the House. I must await further developments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement as to the progress, if any, which has been made in connection with the reorganisation of industry under the new Department of the Board?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave him on 27th January last.

Sir K. WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress or development has taken place since, as that is now some little ago?

Mr. GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a subject which involves constant negotiations with the individual industries, and I could not weigh in with an interim statement, without, possibly, doing serious damage to the objects which we have in view.

Sir K. WOOD: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman say if progress is being made? I am not asking for particulars.

Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly, in this, as in other subjects under the present Government, progress is continually being made.

Sir K. WOOD: In what direction?

TARIFFS.

Sir K. WOOD: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has
yet received any replies in relation to the communication he has made to various countries suggesting a reduction of tariffs?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have nothing at present to add to the answer I gave on this subject on 24th February to the hon. and gallant Members for Paddington, South (Vice-Admiral Taylor), and Dulwich (Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. Hall), of which I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

Sir K. WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer whether, in fact, he has received any reply?

Mr. GRAHAM: I explained to the right hon. Gentleman a week ago that requests or representations had only just been addressed to these Governments, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that these negotiations always take time.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the reply to the question in the negative, and would it not be better to say so?

Mr. GRAHAM: There has been no time for a reply.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the protected industries in the engineering trade are already demanding increased hours and lower wages?

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not a week since this question was put down previously, and surely there has been time for a reply?

RUSSIAN TIMBER CARGOES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British ships are being held up by the American embargo on timber and timber products from the northern camps of Soviet Russia; whether any British ships are now on their way with cargoes of Russian timber to American ports; and to what extent the question of demurrage is provided for?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am not aware that any British ships are being held up in this way or are now on their way with cargoes of Russian timber to American ports.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the embargo placed on Russian timber by Canada and the United States?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Is it true that there is any embargo on this timber in America?

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions do not arise.

RUSSIA.

Mr. CAMPBELL (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE): 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of the cash balances held in this country to the credit of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics or any of its trading organisations?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: No, Sir, I have no information of the kind.

SHIPBUILDING.

Major GLYN: 15 and 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of the world's mercantile shipping tonnage was under construction in Great Britain in 1913; and what is the corresponding figure of tonnage under construction to-day;
(2) what was the total world mercantile shipping tonnage under construction at the end of 1930, and what proportion of this was British, German, French, Italian, and American, respectively; and how do these figures compare with those at the end of 1929?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate the answer to these questions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The information asked for is contained in the following statement:
According to the quarterly shipbuilding returns published by Lloyd's Register of Shipping the tonnage of merchant vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards, under construction in the world at the end of 1913, was 3,331,143 tons gross, at the end of 1929, 3,110,880 tons gross and at the end of 1930, 2,326,086 tons gross.
Information as to the intended nationalities of the vessels under construction is not available, but the following table shows the proportion of the world total which was under construction in the countries specified at the end of 1913, 1929 and 1930:


—
1913.
1929.
1930.


British Countries
…
59.9
50.9
39.6


Germany
…
16.4
8.1
9.4


France
…
6.9
5.4
7.5


Italy
…
1.6
2.5
7.7


United States
…
4.4
5.8
10.0


The proportion under construction in Great Britain and Ireland alone was 58.7 per cent. at the end of 1913, and 39 per cent. at the end of 1930.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITIONS.

Mr. CAMPBELL (for Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE): 60.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is proposed, after the closing of the present British Empire Exhibition in South America, to organise another similar exhibition in one of the principal industrial areas of this country

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am not aware of any such proposal. The British Empire Exhibition in Buenos Aires had been organised by private enterprise under the auspices of the British Chamber of Commerce in the Argentine Republic. The responsibility of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom towards the exhibition is limited to the organisation of an official exhibit. The hon. Member will be aware that in the British Industries Fair, held each year in London and Birmingham, we already have a comprehensive display of the products of British industry.

IMPORTED CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. SMITHERS: 8 and 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) through what agency was the film entitled "Storm over Asia" introduced into this country;
(2) how many films have been imported into this country through the agency of Arcos, Limited, since 30th June, 1930; and what is the total length in feet?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I regret that the information desired is not available.

Mr. SMITHERS: Have the Government any power to restrain the West Ham Corporation or similar bodies—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit that this film has been introduced into this country—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into the merits of the question now.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

BARRACK LABOURERS.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War the present rate of wages, including both the basic rate and the bonus, paid to barrack labourers; the number of hours worked per week for this wage; whether overtime has ever to be worked in addition; and, if so, the rates of pay for such overtime?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The basic rates of wages for barrack labourers vary according to the stations from 29s. in London to 24s. in certain provincial centres, which at the present cost-of-living figure of 55 per cent. will carry a bonus of 16s. and 13s. 3d. respectively. These wages cover all time worked and overtime pay is not admissible since the duties of barrack labourers do not permit of a regular timetable of working hours. It is understood that the average number of hours normally worked throughout the year is about 48 a week.

Mr. LEWIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied as to the fairness of these conditions; and, if not, what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. SHAW: Yes, Sir, I am satisfied that these rates are as good as the rates paid by any employers for similar work.

RECRUITING (BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the desirability of abolishing the rule which prohibits young men who have been in Borstal institutions from joining the Army?

Mr. SHAW: There is no rule prohibiting the enlistment of such men. Provided
they are otherwise qualified and are able to produce a testimonial of good character covering at least 12 months prior to date of enlistment and subsequent to leaving such an institution, each case is considered on its merits.

VACCINATION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that of the 13 cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis at Aldershot, of which eight have already proved fatal, 12 sufferers had been recently vaccinated, he will consider the desirability of suspending compulsory vaccination in the Army?

Mr. SHAW: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. If he will refer to the answer which I gave him on 24th February, he will see that only two of the patients had been vaccinated within six months. The remaining 10 were vaccinated at dates varying from six months to more than four years before they fell ill of cerebro-spinal fever. The fact that only one of the patients was unvaccinated can be accounted for by the rule that no recruit is accepted unless he has been vaccinated or is willing to be. I am advised that there are no grounds in the present outbreak for suspending the rule.

HOLYROOD PALACE (MILITARY GUARD).

Sir PATRICK FORD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War why the sentries have been withdrawn from the Royal palace of Holyrood House; and, in view of the fact that with the exception of a brief period there has been a military guard there ever since the building has been a Royal residence, can he give any assurance that immediate steps will be taken to restore this ancient privilege and right?

Mr. SHAW: The decision to withdraw the guard from the palace of Holyrood House, except when their Majesties or the King's representative were in residence, was taken on the ground of the very low strength of the only battalion stationed in Edinburgh. But I fully appreciate Scottish sentiment in this matter, and I have arranged that the guard shall be restored during the hours from reveille to sunset.

Sir P. FORD: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the steps he has
taken and the answer which he has given, may I ask for an assurance that, when the battalion in garrison is at strength, the ancient custom will be reverted to; further, in view of what has been revealed of the weakness of the forces in this instance, will he prosecute the present recruiting campaign with continued vigour.

RE-ENLISTMENT.

Mr. CAMPBELL (for Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE): 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War what special inducements are offered to suitable time-expired soldiers to re-enlist?

Mr. SHAW: Time expired soldiers, if in other respects eligible and unmarried, are permitted to re-enlist up to the age of 30, compared with the normal age of 25. They are also allowed to reckon previous service for pension purposes provided that re-enlistment takes place within five years of their last discharge and that their former service is declared on re-enlistment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the difficulties put in the way of three-year men re-enlisting without a record, especially in the Artillery?

Mr. SHAW: I would rather have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION (SIZE OF CLASSES).

Miss LEE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any reduction has taken place since October, 1929, in the number of classes in Scottish elementary schools with more than 40 pupils on the roll; and, if so, the amount of the reduction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): In the returns obtained prior to October, 1930, figures were not given in respect of classes of different sizes where the number of pupils on the roll was 50 or under, nor were primary schools separated from the primary departments of secondary schools. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to make the comparison which my hon. Friend desires. In a reply given
to my hon. Friend last week, I gave the figures for 1930.

Miss LEE: Is the Secretary of State aware that there seem to be no figures available by which people interested in the question of the size of classes can measure the progress in the last 18 months, and will he consider supplying us the figures in some form?

Mr. SPEAKER: Major McKenzie Wood.

Miss LEE: I am sorry, but if the Secretary of State replied, I did not hear his reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: Major McKenzie Wood.

Miss LEE: May I ask your help, Mr. Speaker. As this is a matter which is of primary importance to the elementary schools of Scotland, can I get a reply?

Mr. ADAMSON: I consider it of such importance that I informed my hon. Friend that I was prepared to consider any suggestion which she has to make.

HOUSING (LANARKSHIRE).

Mr. TRAIN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many two-roomed houses with kitchenette and bathroom have been built in Lanarkshire under the various Housing Acts since 1921?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): According to the records of the Department of Health for Scotland, 2,319 two-roomed houses with kitchenette and bathroom have been built in the landward area of Lanarkshire with State assistance under the various Housing Acts since the 1st January, 1921.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the average rent of these houses?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Not without notice.

Mr. TRAIN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in Lanarkshire have been condemned by the medical officers of health since 1921; and for how many of them have closing orders been granted and put into operation?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am informed that in the landward area of Lanarkshire between 1st January, 1921, and 31st Decem-
ber, 1930, the Medical Officer of Health reported 8,076 houses as fit for closure. During that period closing orders were made by the local authority in respect of 3,622 houses of which 3,355 have been closed.

Mr. TRAIN: In the light of the information which we had on the same subject from the hon. Gentleman last week, is he now satisfied that the County of Lanark is doing its duty?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Gentleman has asked only for figures of two-apartment houses. If he had asked for the figures of all classes of houses built by Lanarkshire since 1921, he would have Been that they had built more than the number officially scheduled as fit for closure.

Mr. TRAIN: My supplementary question referred to question 32, and not to question 31.

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF WORK, STIRLING- SHIRE (RATE ARREARS).

Mr. MCKINLAY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to cases where the county council of Stirlingshire employ men on State-aided relief works, and at the end of the first week withhold the wages they have earned as payment or part payment of arrears of rates; and, seeing that some of these men with wives and families are ineligible either for Poor Law relief or unemployment benefit, owing to their being employed during the week, will he when approving any such State-aided schemes insert conditions prohibiting this method of rate-recovery in order to mitigate the hardship caused?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the conditions of State-aided unemployment relief schemes is not one that is within my province, but from inquiries I have made, I understand that arrangements have been made whereby a recurrence of the state of affairs indicated in the question will be prevented in the future so far as Stirlingshire county rates are concerned.

Mr. MCKINLAY: Does this apply only to county rates and not to burgh rates?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The whole matter is to be further explored, but the basis of this question was arrestment for county rates, but we have that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION (CHAIRMAN).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines what, if any, equivalent for his surrendered Civil Service pension rights was given or promised to the recently appointed Chairman of the Reorganisation Commission?

Commander SOUTHBY: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Chairman of the Mines Reorganisation Commission has definitely surrendered for good any pension rights to which his service in the Civil Service entitled him or whether, on relinquishing the position of Chairman of the Commission, he will be eligible for a Civil Service pension?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The exact position of the Chairman of the Reorganisation Commission with regard to pension rights involves a long, complicated and detailed explanation, which, with the permission of the hon. and gallant Members, I will give in moving the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate, Class VI, Vote 6, which is on to-day's Order Paper.

Mr. ALBERY: In the meantime has this gentleman given up all pension rights?

Mr. SHINWELL: That is precisely the question I propose to answer on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. LAMBERT: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what date the Treasury assented to the appointment of the chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission at a salary of £7,000 per annum; and whether this salary is exclusive of expenses incurred in the performance of the duties?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have been asked to reply to this question. The date of the Treasury authority is 3rd December last. With regard to the second part of the question, the holder of this post is entitled to travelling and subsistence allowance when travelling on the business of the Commission.

BY-PRODUCTS.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines the tonnage of coal used in the production of by-products for the years 1928, 1929, and 1930?

Mr. SHINWELL: Figures for 1930 are not yet available. The amount of coal used at gas works and by-product coke ovens was approximately 34,500,000 tons in 1928 and 37,500,000 tons in 1929. In addition, several hundred thousand tons of coal were used in the production of pig iron by processes which include the recovery of by-products. Coal used at low temperature carbonisation plants at gas works is included in the above figures. For plants situated elsewhere no figures are available, but they would not materially affect the total figures I have quoted.

EXPORT TRADE.

Major COLVILLE (for Colonel CLIFTON BROWN): 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the amount of coal exports for the months of January and February, 1931, as compared with the same months of 1930?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As stated in the latest issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" the total quantity of coal exported from the United Kingdom and registered during the month of January, 1931, was 3,271,331 tons, as compared with 5,493,410 tons during January, 1930. Similar particulars for the month of February, 1931, are not yet available, but during February, 1930, exports amounted to 4,735,657 tons.

Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure would have been larger this year but for the operation of the quota?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that at a large number of pits in Durham which export coal the workers have been given notice, and a lot of them have been working short time during the whole of the year?

Mr. GRAHAM: I regret the difficulties in the export trade of this industry, but it is quite wrong to attribute those difficulties to the Coal Mines Act.

Sir F. HALL: What does the right hon. Gentleman attribute the difficulties to, and what steps are being taken to increase the exports?

QUOTA SYSTEM.

Major COLVILLE (for Colonel BROWN): 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mines in Durham and Northumberland are being compelled to shut down or work short time owing to the exhaustion of their quota?

Mr. SHINWELL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 24th February to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), of which I am sending him a copy.

PRICES.

Major COLVILLE (for Colonel BROWN): 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many districts have now fixed minimum prices for coal; and if any of these fixed prices apply to coal sold in the home market?

Mr. SHINWELL: In all districts schedules of minimum prices have been drawn up, applying both to the inland and shipment trades. I am informed, however, that in some districts these schedules are not being put into operation pending negotiations in progress with adjoining districts with a view to co-ordination of prices, or consideration that is actively being given by the central council.

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines if any countries have applied the draft convention adopted by the last session of the International Labour Office, limiting hours of work in coal mines; and if he can state which countries at the present, time have a working day of seven and a-half hours or more on the British method of calculation?

Mr. SHINWELL: The draft convention regarding hours of work in coal mines was not adopted at the last International Labour Conference, as it narrowly failed to secure the two-thirds majority necessary for adoption. According to the latest figures published by the International Labour Office, the European countries which work eight hours bank to bank—the equivalent of seven and a-half hours on the British method of calculation—or more are Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland.

ACCIDENTS (BOYS).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines the rate per 1,000 at which boys and youths under 21 years of age employed below ground in the coal mines of Great Britain were killed and injured during the last 10 years, giving separate figures for each of the divisions into which the coalfields are divided?

NUMBER of Boys and Youths under 20 years of age killed and injured per 1,000 employed below ground at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911 (excluding the stratified ironstone mines of Cleveland, Lincoln and Northampton) during the years 1925 and 1927 to 1929. Injury rates relate to boys and youths who were injured and disabled for more than 3 days.


District.
Death Rates.
Injury Bates.


1925.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1925.
1927.
1928.
1929.


Scotland
0.91
1.28
1.31
1.45
168
197
178
170


Northumberland
1.21
0.59
1.70
0.86
284
308
349
368


Durham
1.07
1.21
0.98
1.22
237
298
307
327


Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire.
0.70
1.06
0.96
0.89
165
188
175
173


Yorkshire
1.19
1.09
1.23
1.31
237
225
207
213


North Derby and Nottingham
0.93
0.85
0.94
0.71
251
222
213
224


South Derby, Leicester, Cannock Chase and Warwick.
0.51
0.20
0.43
0.71
192
209
171
185


South Wales and Monmouth
0.88
1.00
0.86
0.89
172
178
198
209


Other Districts*
1.97
1.31
0.88
0.65
176
220
216
208


All Districts
1.00
1.02
1.03
1.04
207
222
222
231


*Including Cumberland, Westmorland, North Wales, South Staffordshire, Worcester, Salop, Gloucester, Somerset and Kent.

COLLIERY ACCIDENT FUNDS.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mining disaster funds now in existence throughout Great Britain; and the total balance of the said funds?

Mr. SHINWELL: The latest information in my possession about colliery accident funds is contained in a Parliamentary Paper issued on 30th July, 1925, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Mr. MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman try to get information more up-to-date?

Mr. SHINWELL: The information which I propose to send to the hon. Member terminated on the 30th July, 1925. I shall do what I can to get more useful and up-to-date figures.

Mr. SHINWELL: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate such information as is available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The only information available relates to persons under 20 years of age and is as follows. This information was not collected prior to 1925, and is not yet available for 1930.

BRITISH COMPANIES (REGISTRATION ABROAD).

Mr. LAMBERT: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has information of companies with headquarters formerly in Great Britain having been transferred abroad; and, if so, what is the amount of capital involved?

Captain WATERHOUSE: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many overseas trading companies, previously registered in this country, have dropped their registration here and become registered abroad during the current financial year; the amount of capital involved; and the estimated consequent loss to the revenue?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The statistics collected under the Companies Acts give no information as to changes of registration of companies or the trans-
fer of headquarter offices. I may point out that a company, wherever registered, is liable to Income Tax on all its profits if its business is controlled in this country, and where the control is abroad, the Revenue receives tax on such part of the income of the company as arises to residents in this country.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether he has information of companies with headquarters formerly in Great Britain being transferred abroad?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have said that I have no information as to changes of that kind.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it not important, when the hon. Gentleman is considering taxation, to have an idea of the movement of companies abroad?

IMPORT DUTIES (REVENUE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the realised revenue during the first nine months of the present financial year from taxes or duties on imported goods?

Mr. PETHICK -LAWRENCE: The approximate net amount of revenue derived from the duties on imported goods during the first nine months of the current financial year was £92,644,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, without wishing to anticipate the Budget statement, whether it is the policy to sweep away these iniquitous taxes?

COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

Mr. ALBERY: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give a list of the commissions and committees appointed by the present Government, giving the name and nature of each committee, the names of the members, the terms of reference, the date on which instituted, the number of sittings, and in the case of any commission or committee not now in existence the date on which they submitted any report or reports and the date on which they ceased to exist?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will send this information to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FIRST-CLASS TRAVEL.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants are entitled to travel first-class in this country; and what would be the estimated saving if the regulations were altered and third-class travelling substituted?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am unable, without long investigation in every Department, to state the precise number of civil servants entitled to travel first-class when on duty in this country and the probable saving from substituting third-class travel. Those so entitled correspond to the commissioned ranks of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the hon. Member not even give me an approximate figure, saying whether it amounts to hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Certainly not the former.

SALARIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many male civil servants of 21 years of age and over are at present paid £3 a week or less; and how many of these are in the London area?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The number of male full-time non-industrial civil servants of 21 years of age and over at present in receipt of wages or salaries of £3 per week or less—inclusive of bonus based on a cost-of-living figure of 55—is estimated at 58,000. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

Mr. BOWEN: Can my hon. Friend give us the information regarding industrial employés as well as non-industrial? The question is not limited to one or the other.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If my hon. Friend will put down that question, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not possible to give the information asked for in the last part of the question? Have they not the addresses where they live? Cannot he tell us whether they are in the London area or not?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have not the information which would enable us to give the answer.

Sir F. HALL: But surely you know where they live?

Mr. BOWEN: Is the hon. Member aware of the seething discontent in the Civil Service arising from these difficulties, and is he prepared to take some steps to alleviate the difficulties which these figures demonstrate?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets that it has not been possible for him to take the steps which he has taken in previous years, but he has already pointed out that the state of the national finances prevents him from taking that course.

COST-OF-LIVING BONUS.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will postpone the reduction of bonus in respect of civil servants with a salary of less than £4 a week until there has been an inquiry into the computation of the cost-of-living index figure in its relation to civil servants?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not able to adopt this suggestion.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is the Financial Secretary aware of the very widespread opinion that the basis of the index figure does not pay due regard to the great increase of rent and travelling expenses; and, in fact, is not a suitable basis for the civil servants who are forced down under the Government to the poverty level in the lower grades?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member. Perhaps I might remind him of the answers given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 3rd February to the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) and by the Minister of Labour on the 19th February to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith).

Mr. KNIGHT: Will the Financial Secretary inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is desirable that if the application of the index figure brings the wages of these people down to below a reasonable level the matter should be considered?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has there been any inquiry at all as to the appropriateness of the cost-of-living index figure being applied to the Civil Service?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not aware of any inquiries particularly directed to that point, but, if the hon. and learned Member will read the answers to which I have referred, he will see that the matter is under consideration.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is not this matter being considered by the Royal Commission and is it not one of the subjects before them?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not in a position to know what the Royal Commission is considering, but I should imagine that it would be within their province to consider the question, and I think it might be taken that they would consider it.

Mr. BROWN: Does the Financial Secretary not think that this was a loose basis adopted for casual purposes before the War, and that there ought to be some scientific basis arrived at after adequate consideration?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already stated that the matter is under consideration.

Mr. BOWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, for some years past, there has been considerable discontent with the application of the cost-of-living index figure, the simple fact being that the Civil Service, like other people, do not believe in the foundation of it at all?

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount that he anticipates would be saved during the fiscal year 1931–32 if provision were made for Members of the House to travel between London and their constituencies third-class instead of first-class?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 17th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank).

Mr. LEWIS: Will the hon. Member seriously consider the desirability of recommending this alteration to the House as a temporary measure, on the ground that it will be a demonstration of the sincerity of the desire of this House for public economy?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We had a long Debate on this question the other day, and I do not feel inclined in answer to a question to add to what was then said.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Is it not a fact that this rather unworthy agitation springs entirely from certain hon. Members who are quite wealthy enough to pay the difference between first and third-class fares?

HON. MEMBERS: Like you.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Can the hon. Member tell us how many Members have voluntarily relinquished the claims on the fares fund and paid their own expenses?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I could not give that information without notice, and then I should have to consider whether it was desirable to give it.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is there anything to prevent any sincere Member from travelling third-class, and how many have done so?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It has already been said that there is nothing to prevent any Member travelling third-class if he chooses to do so.

Mr. TAYLOR: Are there third-class carriages on the trains to Gainsborough?

ROAD GRANTS.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state how many grants were allowed by the Ministry in 1930 for road improvements under schemes submitted by county authorities; and what was the total value of these grants?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This information could only be obtained at a considerable expenditure of time. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press for if, but he will find a considerable amount of information concerning grants made from the Road Fund during the financial year 1929–30 in the recently published report on the administration of the Road Fund for that year.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give me the total of these grants?

Mr. MORRISON: Accounts are settled on the basis of the financial year and not the current year, and I think the hon. Member will find those figures in the returns to which I refer him.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I put down a question asking for the figures for the financial year, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer me then?

Mr. MORRISON: In that case, I should refer the hon. Member to the report dealing with the Road Fund, which is accessible to Members in the Library, and is put there for them to see.

BROADCASTING (WIRELESS LICENCES).

Mr. FREEMAN: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the numbers of people of limited means who apply for wireless licences, he will consider the desirability of issuing a half-yearly licence where desired or allowing applicants to pay in two instalments?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): There are at present more than three and a-half million wireless licences in force; and the cost of collecting and accounting for the fees and securing the renewal of the licences is already considerable. The introduction of a system of half-yearly licences would practically double this work; and the additional expense would, I think, be out of proportion to the benefit derived by the public.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not a fact that there is a large number of people who would be able to take advantage of wireless if they had the opportunity of paying 5s. for the six months but cannot afford to pay the 10s. for the year?

Mr. VIANT: This question has been thoroughly explored by myself and with every sympathy for the course suggested. It is quite within the range of anyone to adopt the instalment system by opening an account with the Post Office Savings Bank, thereby depositing their shillings until the total of 10s. is reached.

Major COLFOX: Is not the licence fee only a very small addition to the cost of the apparatus, and, if people can afford to buy the apparatus, cannot they afford to pay for the licence?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS' PAY.

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the estimated saving to be effected by the reduction in the standard rates of naval officers' pay from 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. as from 1st July, 1931, to 30th June, 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The estimated amount of the saving in question is £128,000.

OFFICERS (RETIREMENT SCHEME).

Sir H. CAYZER: 59.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the estimated saving to be effected under the scheme whereby 1,044 officers are to be given the option of retiring, at the discretion of the Admiralty, on 1st April next?

Mr. AMMON: The number of officers to be retired under this scheme is limited to approximately 150, the retirement being in batches spread over about two years, commencing 1st April, 1931. On the assumptions that the number of retirements desired will be effected and that the officers would otherwise have remained in the Service until eligible for the maximum retired pay of their rank, it is estimated that the ultimate saving to be effected under this scheme will amount to approximately £750,000.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that there will be a loss for the first two years?

Mr. AMMON: No, I do not think so.

PASSPORTS (VISA FEES).

Mr. DAY: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are at present under consideration by his Department for the purpose of making reciprocal arrangements between travellers from foreign countries and British subjects travelling to foreign countries for reduction in visa fees on passports; and will he give particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, within recent years visa fees have been abolished in the case of a number of countries and reduced in certain other cases. As my right hon. Friend has stated on several occasions, His Majesty's Government are unable, for financial reasons, to consider any general abolition or further reduction of visa fees at the present time.

Mr. DAY: Are any conversations taking place with the American authorities with a view to securing a reduction?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. Financial reasons preclude us from proceeding further for the present.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What is the position with regard to Russia?

Mr. DALTON: Just as it was a long time ago.

MATERNAL DEATHS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number of women who have died in childbirth each year since the War; what percentage of these deaths are estimated to be preventible; whether he has any information showing the number who received no pre-natal supervision; and what is the proportion of deaths compared to those who did receive assistance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Statement showing the numbers of women in England and Wales who have died in childbirth attributed to preg-
nancy and child-bearing in each of the years 1919 to 1929, inclusive:


Year.

Total number of maternal deaths.


1919
…
…
…
3,028


1920
…
…
…
4,144


1921
…
…
…
3,322


1922
…
…
…
2,971


1923
…
…
…
2,892


1924
…
…
…
2,847


1925
…
…
…
2,900


1926
…
…
…
2,860


1927
…
…
…
2,690


1928
…
…
…
2,920


1929
…
…
…
2,787

The figures for 1930 are not yet available.

My right hon. Friend is advised that no reliable estimate can be formed of the proportion of maternal deaths in these years which were preventible, but he may point out that in their recent report the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality estimated that of the deaths brought under their notice, which they had no reason to suppose were other than fairly representative of the total, not less than one-half were preventible. No information is available in regard to the last two parts of the question, but the Departmental Committee record their opinion that while the number of women who receive ante-natal supervision is increasing, there is still a large section of the population which does not realise the advantages of such supervision.

EAST AFRICA (PROFESSOR JULIAN HUXLEY'S VISIT).

Mr. BOYCE: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent visit of Professor Julian Huxley to Tanganyika involved any charge upon Imperial or local government funds; and, if so, what was the cost and the official object of his visit?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Professor Huxley visited Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika to advise the Governments as to the form which biological teaching should take in African schools. He agreed to waive the question of remuneration, and the refund of the cost of his passages and the only assistance given him was the grant of
free travelling and maintenance in the territories visited. It is not possible to say, without reference to Tanganyika, what expenditure in connection with his visit was incurred by the Tanganyika Government. No expenditure fell on the British Exchequer, except for a gratuity of 15 guineas which was paid to him from the Empire Marketing Fund for a special report on the possibility of using films in parts of the Empire where ordinary methods of publicity and propaganda have only a limited appeal.

JAMAICA (FINANCIAL SITUATION).

Mr. HANNON: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the decline in the public revenue of Jamaica during the past year; if a readjustment of import tariffs is now proposed in order to meet this deficit; if the subsidy to the sugar industry is to be discontinued; and how the Government propose to deal with the situation which has been created?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend is aware that the estimates for the current financial year of the Colony allowed for a deficit largely if not entirely due to the heavy commitments of the Government in respect of the subsidy to the sugar industry. Specific proposals for meeting any deficit which may eventuate have not recently been submitted, but on the information before him my Noble Friend is assured that the Colonial Government is fully alive to the possibility that it may become necessary to impose additional taxation; and this question, together with that of any further extension of temporary assistance to the sugar industry, continues to engage the anxious consideration of the Government of Jamaica. No official information has reached him regarding any proposal to readjust import tariffs, but no doubt that and other possible sources of increased revenue has been or will be considered by the Governor and his advisers.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to consider any proposals which the Government of Jamaica may submit with reference to their economic condition?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LEGISLATION).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the names of the members of the committee which he has appointed to consider the report of the National Fuel and Power Committee?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: With the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, I propose to circulate the desired information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it correct that there are three Members of this House on the committee, and that they are all members of the Labour party; and, if so, what is the reason for that departure from precedent?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think that is correct, but they represent one side of the gas industries, and that accounts for the way in which this committee has been made up.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not customary that when Members of the House are put on a committee they should be taken from all parties and not only from one party?

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not think they were chosen as Members of the House at all, but to ensure representation of both sides of the industry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if there are any representatives of the Gas Workers' Union who belong to the Conservative or the Liberal party?
Following is the information:
The following are the members of the committee which the Board of Trade have appointed to consider the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the National Fuel and Power Committee, and to report what amendments to existing gas legislation are desirable and necessary to give effect to those recommendations by general legislation or by special order, namely:

Mr. Frederic John Wrottesley, K.C. (Chairman).
Mr. Jacques Abady.
Mr. John Baker, M.P.
Mr. Reginald William Edwards.
Sir William Hart, O.B.E.
Mr. Arthur Hayday, J.P., M.P.
206
Mr. Thomas Percy Ridley, F.C.I.S.
Mr. James Francis Ronca, O.B.E.
Mr. Adrian Noel Christian Shelley.
Mr. Arthur William Smith, F.C.I.S.
Mr. Will Thorne, C.B.E., M.P.
Sir David Milne-Watson, M.A., LL.D., D.L.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESH- MENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. MANDER: 57.
asked, the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, the proportion of wine and tobacco purchased in his Department from Empire sources?

Mr. COMPTON: The proportion which Empire wines and tobacco bear to the total purchases during 1930 is: Wines, 5.70 per cent.; tobacco, 58.75 per cent.

Mr. MANDER: Would the hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange in future that only Empire wines and tobacco shall be served in the refreshment department of this House?

Mr. COMPTON: I shall be very pleased to do what my hon. Friend desires, and I hope he will take the hint and encourage his friends to purchase those articles.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-night, in the event of the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Government propose to ask the House to take the first four Orders of the Day, down to and including Supply [26th February] Report. I believe that at least two are non-contentious.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL -THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing that the House should take Orders 2, 3 and 4, relating to Supply, realise that one of the Votes included, namely, Vote 9 of Class 7 (Public Buildings, Overseas), was put off from discussion in Committee in order to meet the, convenience of the First Commissioner of Works; and that, with regard to Vote 6 of Class 6 (Mines Department), the Secretary for Mines has just told the House that he proposes on that Vote to make a
long and complicated statement; and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in these circumstances, he really desires to take Supply at Eleven o'Clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: As it happens, the two Votes which the right hon. Baronet has mentioned are those that I have in mind, but I do not think it would be impossible to get those through. We have no intention of having what is called an all-night sitting, and I am sure that, with helpfulness on both sides, the greater part of this programme can be got through.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that suggestion to be reasonable in the circumstances? With regard to the first of these Votes—that for the Washington Embassy—it was to meet the convenience of the First Commissioner of Works that the discussion was postponed. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not give an absolute pledge, but he said he would make representations to the Patronage Secretary so that the matter could be discussed at the proper time. The other Vote, when it

came before the Committee, excited a good deal of criticism in every quarter, and was challenged, and the Secretary for Mines now tells the House that he proposes himself to introduce the Supplementary Estimate on Report and to make what he called a long and complicated statement on the matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry that I did not hear the statement of my hon. Friend, but I am assured by the Patronage Secretary that it is reasonable to ask that these two Votes should be taken to-night.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the former Minister for Education going to make a personal explanation of the grounds for his resignation?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not my affair.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 126.

Division No. 175.]
AYES.
[3.36 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Haycock, A. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Daggar, George
Hayday, Arthur


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dallas, George
Hayes, John Henry


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Alpass, J. H.
Day, Harry
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Ammon, Charles George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herriotts, J.


Arnott, John
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Aske, Sir Robert
Dukes, C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Ayles, Walter
Duncan, Charles
Hoffman, P. C.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Ede, James Chuter
Hollins, A.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hopkin, Daniel


Barnes, Alfred John
Egan, W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Batey, Joseph
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Foot, Isaac
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Freeman, Peter
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Isaacs, George


Benson, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Johnston, Thomas


Blindell, James
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gill, T. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bowen, J. W.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Glassey, A. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gossling, A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brooke, W.
Gould, F.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Buchanan, G.
Granville, E.
Kelly, W. T.


Burgess, F. G.
Gray, Milner
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Kinley, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kirkwood, D.


Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomas E.
Knight, Holford


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lang, Gordon


Chater, Daniel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lathan, G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Compton, Joseph
Hardle, George D.
Lawrence, Susan


Cove, William G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Lawson, John James


Leach, W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Simmons, C. J.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Murnin, Hugh
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Naylor, T. E.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Lees, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Logan, David Gilbert
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Longbottom, A. W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Longden, F.
Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Paling, Wilfrid
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lowth, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Sorensen, R.


Lunn, William
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stamford, Thomas W.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


McElwee, A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Strauss, G. R.


McEntee, V. L.
Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.


McKinlay, A.
Price, M. P.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Pybus, Percy John
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilton
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


McShane, John James
Rathbone, Eleanor
Tillett, Ben


Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)
Raynes, W. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Toole, Joseph


Manning, E. L.
Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Townend, A. E.


March, S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Viant, S. P.


Marcus, M.
Romeril, H. G.
Walker, J.


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Marley, J.
Rothschild, J. de
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Marshall, Fred
Rowson, Guy
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Mathers, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
West, F. R.


Matters, L. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Westwood, Joseph


Maxton, James
Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Melville, Sir James
Sanders, W. S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Messer, Fred
Sandham, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Middleton, G.
Sawyer, G. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Millar, J. D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Mills, J. E.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Milner, Major J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wise, E. F.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sherwood, G. H.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shield, George William



Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shillaker, J. F.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Mort, D. L.
Shinwell, E.
Thurtle.


Muff, G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Albery, Irving James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Allen, Lt.-Col. sir William (Armagh)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Atkinson, C.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macquisten, F. A.


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Marjorlbanks, Edward


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Boyce, Leslie
Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Butler, R. A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Purbrick, R.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Remer, John R.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth.,S.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm,W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.


Christle, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Simms, Major-General J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Cowan, D. M.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cranborne, Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur




Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Withers, Sir John James


Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Womersley, W. J.


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thomson, Sir F.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Train, J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

China Indemnity (Application) Bill,

Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the corporation of Preston with reference to the Ribble navigation; and to make further provision with reference to their tramway and water undertakings and the finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [Preston Corporation Bill [Lords.]

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL Lords.

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee C.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read.

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I beg to move,
That the Committee stage (including any Motion for an Instruction), the Report stage, and Third Reading of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

(1) Committee Stage.

Five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.

TABLE I.—Committee Stage.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
Instructions
6.0


Clause 1
10.30


Second
Clause 2
7.30


Clause 3
10.30


Third
Clauses 4 and 5
7.30


Clause 6
10.30


Fourth
Clauses 7 to 9
7.30


Schedules
10.30


Fifth
Now Clauses, New Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion
7.30

(2) Report Stage and Third Reading.

Three allotted days shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the following Table, and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

TABLE II.—Report Stage and Third Reading.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
New Clauses and Clauses 1 to 4
10.30


Second
Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report Stage to a conclusion
10.30


Third
Third Reading
10.30

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.

Provided that where an allotted day is a Friday this Order shall have effect as if for reference to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government. Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

Everyone who has introduced what is commonly called a Guillotine Resolution previously has felt it necessary to offer an apology. We have all apologised so often, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and myself, that. I think it is time we stopped the apologies and said quite candidly that, with the work this House has to do, and the great capacity enjoyed by a good many Members of the House for prolonged Debate, no large and important Measure can go through without some form of Closure. The only thing that whoever is in my position ought to do is to construct a table which will provide time for fair discussion and enable Members on all side of the House to put the case for and against the various Clauses of the Bill and then allow a decision to be taken in the usual way in the Division Lobby. I think this table is pretty fair in that respect.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Too generous.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to say it is too generous, but I think it is fair. When the announcement was made by the Government on the 26th of last month that the Reform Bill would have to be put through under the Guillotine, the right hon. Gentleman opposite at once protested and said he did not know of any Franchise Bill that had been so used before. I see to-day he has a very forthright Amendment on the Paper. If he has put it down under the impression that he was right, I hope to convince him that he was quite wrong. As a matter of fact, there was a Guillotine Motion carried for a Franchise Bill in this House. It was in 1913.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: What happened?

The PRIME MINISTER: It does not matter what happened. The right hon. Gentleman is always raising false issues. I will put the question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), who, I suppose, will follow. Is it true, or is it not true, that the House of Commons passed a Guillotine Resolution relating to a Franchise Bill? That is the point with which I am concerned. In 1913 the House, on Mr. Asquith's Motion, carried a Guillotine Resolution, and, if the Bill was not proceeded with, it was not on account of the Guillotine Resolution. It was on account of a Ruling which was given by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. It was a Ruling which upset the whole of the Bill and compelled the Government of the day to withdraw the Bill. We have taken precautions so that that cannot happen on this occasion.
It is also interesting, from the point of view of what may be said later on, to examine the two Bills. The Bill of 1913 broadened, or lowered, the qualification of the Parliamentary franchise, and raised thereby a very important principle of democratic government. It also dealt with local government, with registration, and with alternative and successive qualifications, which was a point which had been the subject of very heated discussion in preceding years. It imposed a penalty for voting in more than one constituency. It contained provisions as to the existing incapacities to vote, raising very important issues, and it proposed the abolition of University constituencies. It was upon that Bill that the Guillotine was imposed.
The Guillotine that was then proposed provided for eight days in Committee, one day on Report, and one day on Third Reading. It was a Guillotine with which can be compared, certainly not unfavourably, the Resolution which I am now moving. But what is more important still, if the eight days proposed for that Bill are seized upon, three of the eight days were to be devoted to a discussion of women suffrage, and, when that fact is left out, the proposal of that Guillotine was five days for Committee, one day for Report, and one day for the Third Reading, a total of seven days. Considering the contents of the present Bill and that there is nothing in it which has not been the subject of Debates in this
House again and again, the time proposed by the Government in this Resolution is very fair indeed in order to enable the House to discuss the Bill and to come to conclusions upon it.
I see from certain newspapers that we are establishing a precedent, a very bad one, in guillotining a constitutional Bill. That is not so. The Parliament Bill of 1911, it is quite true, was started as a Bill open to discussion. What was the experience? That Bill because it was an open Bill was delayed and delayed to such an extent that the Government of the day rightly made up their mind that the later stages should be made subject to a Guillotine Resolution. The Government of Ireland Bill, surely a constitutional Bill, was put through under the Guillotine. The Established Church (Wales) Bill, surely a constitutional Bill, in 1912, was the subject of the Guillotine. Bills which were considered to be important and which it was necessary to get through have been put through under the Guillotine. The Franchise Registration Bill of 1913 was put through under the Guillotine. Therefore, following the good Conservative principle—

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: All Lib-Lab.

The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will contain himself for a minute I will complete the circle. I am following precedent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley, in moving one of these Motions on the 11th December, 1928, quoted Mr. Asquith as having said:
I have said over and over again, in the years when I was responsible for the conduct of the business of the House, that we shall not be able to carry on the complicated Parliamentary machine unless we adopt in some form or other the time-table system. It is a necessary incident of Parliamentary life.
Having quoted those words from Mr. Asquith, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley added his own contribution, and said:
I think there will he agreement with the gist of this statement on all sides of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1928; col. 1954, Vol. 223.]
4.0 p.m.
I can hardly hope that that agreement will be demonstrated in the Lobby, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if he comes again to stand by this box and to produce a Bill contain-
ing a considerable number of Clauses, each Clause capable of innumerable Amendments, and each Amendment capable of being talked about—I do not say discussed—for half hour after half hour, he will begin the consideration of his Bill by moving a Guillotine Resolution. If his Bill happens to be a constitutional Bill he will have no scruples whatever in applying the Guillotine to such a Bill. It does not matter where one may be in tune to come, here, or there, or over there, there is no right hon. Member of the House who may be responsible for the business of the House who, in time to come, will be able to pilot through a large and controversial Bill, which from its very nature must include a miscellaneous lot of Clauses without a Guillotine Resolution. We can sit an extraordinarily long time. What is to be the use of it all? What is the use from the Parliamentary point of view, quite apart from party and the public outside, of sitting day after day, after the gist of the arguments has been reviewed, after every consideration germane to the points brought before the House has been undertaken, of going round and round, hon. Members here and there getting up to talk and talk—I say that to do that is bringing this House into contempt. Hon. Members know it perfectly well. Yet we get month by month, and quarter by quarter, certain records of the number of columns reported in Debate. What does it all amount to? Jealous as I am of private Members' time, I would far rather see this House err on the side of rapid efficiency, than dawdling, listless talk, talk after everything has been said which can properly be said. Therefore, I move this Motion.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to assent to the arbitrary curtailment of debate upon a Measure of first-class importance vitally affecting the representation of the people.
I rise with great pleasure to move this Amendment, which stands in my name and the names of some of my right hon. Friends. Once more I have to complain of encroachment upon the rights of private Members of this House, and when
I am finished I shall certainly have shown that I have some right to make that complaint. I accept a great deal of what the Prime Minister has said, but there is a fundamental difference between us. In the process of evolution from 1914 to the present year, the Prime Minister has passed, in his own words, from being a very strong opponent of what is known as closure by compartment, to one who believes that all Bills taken on the Floor of the House should be subject to the Guillotine. I hope to show before I have finished that that transformation in his character was due to his association with hon. Members below the Gangway with whom the Guillotine has been a favourite weapon. Mr. Asquith spoke of the Guillotine being an incident. I quite agree, but when you are speaking of something being an incident, you are speaking of something that is endemic, not epidemic. I object to it as a common practice.
I do not accept the view of the Prime Minister. I take this view—and I think that my action in office will bear out what I am saying now—that the Guillotine is necessary at times, and is defensible, but you want one of three circumstances to justify it to the House of Commons. It may be justified when an important Bill has to be got through, and there is great congestion of business. I think it is justified when there are such circumstances as require the passage of a Bill within a limited space of time for some good or specific reason. I think also that it is justified when the Government are being troubled by definitely obstructive tactics on the part of the Opposition. Each of those three cases justify, and, indeed, make necessary the Guillotine. Everybody, I think, will agree with that, but no one can say at this moment there is anything approaching to a state of congested business. It is a matter of common knowledge in the House that the Government have been hard put to it to find business for the House in the past week.
The Government have no idea what the strength of opposition is to a Bill until they bring the Bill into Committee of the House of Commons. They should make that test before they impose their Guillotine. That is my view, and I hope to show later on that I have always taken
that view in asking the House to assent to the infliction of the Guillotine in the case of any Bills for which I have been responsible. I have observed that it was a favourite weapon of the Liberal party. During those years of their great ascendency, beginning in 1906, throughout the whole term of their office, they used the Guillotine on an average four times every year, but in the Coalition, when, it may be remembered, the beneficient tyranny of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was tempered by the milder Conservative support, it was only applied rather less than once each year. When I had the honour of being the head of the Government we applied it just under once a year on the average. I applied it on the Trade Disputes Bill in 1927. How did that come in my category? The slow progress of the Bill in Committee, which sat 18 hours and only succeeded in passing the first seven words of the Bill. That is a form of obstruction where, I think, the Guillotine should be applied. What did a leader of the Labour party, the present Home Secretary, say when we made it? He used these words, which I commend to the House:
We have once sat on that side of the House; we shall be there again, and we, therefore, enter our protest against this policy of 'gag' and of bullying, but we leave the House at this moment"—
We are not going to do that—
with the consciousness that before very long we shall come back with a majority which shall be used more fairly and reasonably than the majority of the present Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1927; cols. 944–5, Vol. 206.]
Then we used the Guillotine a second time on the Unemployment Insurance Bill in December of that year. Christmas was near which made the urgency of the date, but also, it must be remembered, that Bill was in Committee the equivalent in hours of 7½ ordinary days, and only five Clauses were passed. The Guillotine, therefore, became a necessity. Then, on the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, in June, 1928, we had the summer prorogation in front of us when we started in Committee, and Clause 1 took nearly two whole days. The Guillotine was used for the fourth and last time on the Local Government Bill, and there we had a justification which the right hon. Gentleman has not got now—the proximity of a General Election.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Mr. Asquith bringing in a Guillotine Resolution on a Franchise Bill. That is perfectly true. It was an urgent Bill from his point of view, because at that time the Suffragist movement was at its height, and it was important, for many reasons, to give satisfaction to that movement. I understand that he desired to get the enfranchisement of women through as soon as he could, and not unreasonably, in the circumstances, he took every precaution to do it, but, of course, the Bill broke down. The Prime Minister has just told us that he does not mean this Bill to break down, which was a very interesting piece of information for us, and it is interesting to remember that when Mr. Asquith moved his Resolution on the Franchise Bill that Bill was doomed to an early demise.
The Prime Minister used the phrase that he asked for the Bill in the special circumstances of the time. What are the special circumstances of the time? Does anyone know? I do not. I have said that the Prime Minister has been converted to this procedure through his association with the Liberal party, and I have shown that the Liberal party have been much more keen in the exercise of this particular form of Parliamentary procedure than any other party. It, is very interesting to consider for a moment why this is the case. I have been at some pains to get at the bottom of it, because Liberalism stands for freedom of speech, and the Guillotine certainly does not. But I have got to the bottom of it. In the Liberal claim for freedom of speech there has always run through the ages a very strong phase of humanitarianism. The guillotine owed its origin to humanitarians in Paris in 1789, the desire being to use a more humane method than the slow process of execution then in use. The humanitarian side of Liberalism said, "What a slow and gradual process is this constant debate with its repetition of arguments! Let us have a humane method of execution, and support it to the full extent of our power." I believe that was the origin of it, and I feel much more satisfied, now that I have found that it did not really come from any opposition to that freedom of speech which is so much on the lips of Liberals.
One cannot help asking at this moment why it is, seeing that there exist none of the reasons which, in my view, ought to exist for the Guillotine, the Government propose to guillotine this particular Measure? I should have said that, of course, it was a deal between the Government and the benches below the Gangway, but I cannot say that, because the Prime Minister has said that there is no deal of any kind—no understanding. I accept it from him, but it reminds me very much of the position of a couple in Worcestershire, in the hop gardens. One day when a young hop-worker brought a reluctant lady and introduced her to a friend of mine, he said, "This is my young woman. We are not exactly married, but we have been co-operating for two years." I quite accept the word of the Prime Minister that there is no marriage of true hearts, but there has been, and is, co-operation, and, in any case, I would say that this Bill, and the Bill with which we are familiar upstairs, are in the position of the Siamese Twins. They are going to live together or they are going to die together; their fates are bound inextricably together.
We oppose the Prime Minister's Motion because we believe that none of the circumstances which justify the Guillotine exist in the case of this Bill. We believe that it is an attempt to stifle Debate on a very important Bill. We believe that it is the result of some kind of understanding which we do not think redounds to the credit of the House of Commons, and that that is the impression in the country is shown by the declining polls at the by-elections. We shall give our vote against the Motion in full confidence that we are supporting the dignity and freedom of the House of Commons.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) spoke of the Siamese twins, meaning that, when one was separated from the other, both died. I think his history is at fault. One of the Siamese twins got married, and that twin had a very large progeny. I do not see the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in his place, but I have heard talk not of what the right hon. Gentleman delicately called co-operation but some form of loose alliance with him. I oppose the Amend
ment of the right hon. Gentleman. I consider that the Government have been far too generous. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is always generous on these occasions. He has been generous with our time, with his own time, and with the Government's time. Five days are being given to the Committee stage. Those are days absolutely wasted.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Hear, hear!

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) had better wait until I have finished what I was going to say. There is no reason why the Bill should not have been sent upstairs for its Committee stage. We have much more important work to do on the Floor of the House. The people outside are becoming thoroughly disgusted with the attitude of the House of Commons. I would ask hon. Members to consider the business on which we have been engaged during the last few days. Last week the whole of our time was taken up with Supplementary Estimates. That was pure waste of time as regards checking expenditure. It could be far better dealt with by a Select Committee, without the time of the House being occupied with it. We spent time on ancient monuments, relics of the British Museum, the grey seal, and now a whole day will be taken up for this Guillotine Motion and Supplementary Estimates. At the end of the Session we shall be told that all kinds of things that do not matter have to be squeezed out. The slaughter of the innocents will take place, not by the humane guillotine of the right hon. Member for Bewdley, but by strangulation at birth.
The Bills that we need are Bills which will do something for the masses of the people, who are looking to this House. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite want to waste more time on the Floor of the House by extending the Guillotine Motion or by refusing the Guillotine Motion. The object of the Opposition is not to prevent useful Measures from going through but to prevent any Measures from going through, by the steady drip of their talk: useless and ineffective talk. The business that is waiting to be done by this House is
urgent. I am glad to see the Home Secretary present. When are we going to have the Factory Bill introduced? When are we to have a Washington Eight Hours Bill, a Workmen's Compensation Bill, a Land Valuation Bill? Will hon. Members opposite help us there? Those are matters on which hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will help us. We have a majority for all those Measures.
Let us look at the Motion which the Prime Minister has introduced and which the Leader of the Opposition opposes. Five whole Parliamentary days are to be given to this Bill, although, as the Prime Minister said, every one of the Clauses has been discussed over and over again. We all know their merits and the details. The question of motor cars at elections and the university vote have been discussed. We have had several private Members' Bills during the time that I have been in this House dealing with the question of motor cars. The question of Parliamentary franchise has been discussed in previous Parliaments. The question of the abolition of the plural vote has also been discussed. The alternative vote has been debated and rejected by every party in turn for years. It is being brought in as a compromise. In politics we live on compromise. Every party does it.
I regret very much that we are giving one single day to the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. We need the time for really important Measures. I regret that the Government have introduced a Guillotine Motion in which they propose five days for the Committee stage and three days for the remaining stages, making eight days in all. I submit that four days would have been ample. If necessary, we could have suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule. A couple of all-night sittings would have got rid of the Committee stage. We on these benches are prepared to support the Prime Minister in such a course. On these Guillotine Motions we get the old battledore and shuttlecock between the two Front benches, which is sickening the people of this country; the democracy which had its birth here. It is bringing the Parliamentary system, as my right hon. Friend said, into contempt. We want Measures that the people are looking
for, Measures to which we are pledged. For these reasons, I support the Prime Minister with the greatest pleasure in his Guillotine Motion, in order to get this Measure through.
I ask my hon. Friends on this side not to give way to the seductive pipings of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He talked about the invention of the Guillotine. When the guillotine was in operation in France there were certain old ladies, known as the tricotines, who used to sit round the the guillotine, knitting. They knitted garments, stockings and so forth, and took delight in the fall of the heads of the aristocrats. We see on the Opposition benches the old ladies, the knitters—I do not want to make any offensive remarks, and I am only using this as an illustration—who enjoy the spectacle of the time of the people and of this House being taken by the removal of opportunities for bringing in Measures that will help the people. If that is the only contribution that the Opposition have to make to the solution of the very serious problems that confront this House, the sooner they take the opportunity of seeking the suffrages of the electors the better. They do not seem to be in any hurry to seek the suffrages of the electors of a Division only a short distance away from this House. I have heard it said that the Leader of the Opposition is thinking of contesting the seat himself. Will he fight on the question of whether Parliament should be used as a time-wasting device? Parliament should not be a time-wasting device, but it should be used for bringing in useful Measures. I support the Prime Minister, although I think he has been over-generous. I do not wish to play into the hands of hon. Members apposite, whose only wish is to obstruct.

Lord STANLEY: The Prime Minister said that he was not going to make the usual apology to my right hon. Friend. It is possible that that apology was not necessary, because the two Front Benches are more or less tarred with the same brush. The people to whom the apology is due are the back benchers, because it is our rights that are being affected and our activities that are being curtailed. No back bencher can welcome a Resolution of this kind because it still further curtails his rights. We are per-
fectly prepared to admit that on some occasions the Guillotine is an absolutely essential part of our Parliamentary machinery. Of course, whenever it is introduced by any Government the Opposition will always oppose it, not necessarily because they are opposed to the Guillotine, but because they are opposed to the Bill for which the particular Resolution has been introduced. It is much more to the manner in which and the reason for which the Guillotine Motion is introduced that we take exception.
We recognise that it is the duty of every Government to govern and to get through their business. If Governments would do a little more of that, we should be the better pleased. We admit that this machinery is necessary to overcome deliberate obstruction, but until you have tried it you do not know whether the opposition that you are going to get is going to be obstructive or constructive. On many occasions we find that had it not been for an exhaustive Committee stage a Bill would never have appeared at the end in a workable condition. As my right hon. Friend said, until you have made the trial and you know what the opposition is going to be, you cannot tell whether they are simply out to obstruct or simply to make a bad Bill into a better one. It must be recognised that the Guillotine weapon is a weapon of defence and not of offence, and you must he very careful to see that you only bring it into operation when you are not getting fair play at the hands of the Opposition, and not simply to stifle the natural desires of the Opposition to debate an extremely important Measure.
I do not think that this Resolution can come under the category of those occasions on which a Guillotine Motion is really necessary. This Bill affects very closely the interests of every single. Member of this House. There are many Bills and many Resolutions which are debated in this House which can be left to learned counsel. They raise legal questions and we are prepared for the legal experts on both sides to argue the case for us. There are other Bills that are highly technical, and we are prepared to allow the people in our party who happen to be experts on that subject to argue the case for us. This Bill is different. It affects every Member of
this House, and we have a right to speak on a Measure which affects us so intimately.
I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in regard to the question of time. I do not agree that the time which has been allotted to the Committee stage is out of all proportion to its importance. The Government have only allowed five days for the Committee stage. During that time we have to discuss, apart from minor questions, six matters of important principle and of the greatest general importance. The Government have no mandate for this Bill. If they thought it was of such tremendous importance why did not the Prime Minister mention it in his election address? It may have been mentioned in one or two speeches by hon. Members opposite, but no one can say that it was put in the forefront of their programme at the last election or that they got any votes at all on this ground. Hon. Members opposite may say that we never mentioned the Trade Disputes Act in our election address. We hoped that such a contingency would never arise, and we had to introduce the Measure to meet a great national emergency. It was introduced with the general approval of the country.
Then, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, what on earth is the hurry and pressure of business? If we were near the end of a Session I admit that we might have to use machinery of this kind to get business through, but there is no hurry now. What is the pressure of business? We have been able to relieve the Government of a good deal of their business and perhaps we shall be only too happy to relieve them of a good deal more, to the general benefit and welfare of the community. If, on the other hand, the Government are anxious to get this Bill through because a General Election is imminent, we should be the more ready to co-operate and get the business over as soon as possible. No words of mine can better explain the reasons why we think this Motion inopportune as those which I found when looking through an old copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT the other day. Some hon. Members of the House may recognise them. The quotation is:
We say that a Motion like this ought not to be tabled, because there is no urgency for the Bill; there is no demand for the Bill; there are no circumstances in relation to our national life, our trade, our business, or our prospects in any sense making any claim for this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1027; col. 942, Vol. 206.]
That is what the Home Secretary said when he opposed the Guillotine Motion on the Trade Disputes Act. This Bill answers all the questions which the Home Secretary put in the negative, and unless we are very careful we may get another resignation from the Socialist Cabinet, because, obviously, the Prime Minister has moved this Motion in opposition to the wishes of the Home Secretary, unless the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind as to the occasion on which the Guillotine ought to be used. The Home Secretary went on to indicate that if the Socialist party ever came into power they would not use their majority so as to gag and bully the Opposition. They have not come back with a majority, but they have been able to use their minority, with their allies to assist them, to bully and gag the Opposition, though whether those allies are going to be considered worthy of their hire remains to be seen. I do not wish to take up the time by discussing general principles as there are many details of great importance to be discussed, but I want to enter a protest, as the first back bencher who has spoken on this particular occasion, not against the general use of the Guillotine but against this particular use of it. Its application is untimely and unfair, and on this occasion it is a very definite restriction on the rights of private Members.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to enter my protest against the Motion made by the Prime Minister, and I do not want to give a silent vote on this occasion. I do not like the sort of thing by which we on this side of the House are led into the Lobby strongly protesting against a Motion like this being carried through in this tyrannical manner, and then when we occupy the other side of the House take up the hypocritical attitude that the Government are bringing the proceedings of Parliament into contempt. There is certainly contempt arising in the country, but from quite another standpoint. The serious issue before the country at the moment is to find work
for those who cannot get it, and if a Measure of that kind was brought in I should be prepared to support a Guillotine Motion if there was unscrupulous opposition from the other side of the House. But in regard to this Bill, it is well understood in the country that if there has not been a deal between the Government and hon. Members of the Liberal party there is unquestionably an understanding, and that if it had not been for the strong pressure from Liberal benches on the Leader of the House this Measure would not have been brought before Parliament at all. It is also somewhat strange and, to my mind, must cause serious reflections among the trade union elements in the country, that while the Liberal party have stabbed to the heart the Bill with which they are supposed to be sincerely concerned, trade union Members are now to be led into the Lobby to support a Bill which has been introduced at the request of the Liberal party. I do not want to play any game of that kind, and I am going into the Lobby against the Motion.

Lord ERSKINE: No one could have put the case against this Motion better than it has been put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). It is refreshing to hear an hon. Member standing up for the rights of private Members. I want to say a word about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is always pleasant to see Satan rebuking sin. Anyone who has been in the House for any length of time will remember that when the hon. and gallant Member was in opposition we spent many long, I will not say weary, hours listening to him on all sorts of subjects, and I should like to pay him the compliment that he was one of the best obstructors the Labour party, and the Liberal party originally, possessed. I do not often speak in this House, but it seems to be my fate to follow an hon. Member who has made what I think is a most uncomfortable speech from the point of view of his Government. On the last occasion, when a Motion of this kind was debated, I followed an hon. Member who took the same line as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, who in his speech went through a list of Bills which he thought would do a great deal of good to the country. He said, why
not bring in these Bills now instead of bringing in a Measure for which the Government have never had a mandate. I do not think the Prime Minister will say that the hon. and gallant Member's speech was very helpful.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the Noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. My speech was strongly in support of the Prime Minister's Motion and, indeed, blamed him for his generosity.

Lord ERSKINE: I realise that the hon. and gallant Member supported the Motion—and why? In order that this unwanted Bill should be got out of the way as soon as possible so that other Measures might be brought before the House. I do not think the Prime Minister will be very pleased with the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member; they were hardly of any assistance to him. The Prime Minister said that he was not prepared to offer any apology for this Motion. It is true that all Governments have moved Guillotine Motions, but the real case was put by the Leader of the Opposition when he said that in the main a Guillotine Motion is desired because the Government were pressed with business, or because we were nearing the end of the Session, or because we were approaching an election when it was essential to get the business through. No hon. Member, no matter in what quarter of the House they may sit, will say that on no occasion is it right or proper to have a Guillotine Motion, but, on the other hand, we say that when there is no urgency, when the decks are clear, when for the last week we have seen the Government producing very little business, there is no necessity for this type of Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull said that we were considering Supplementary Estimates all last week. May I point out that on two days the Government did not even suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, which shows that they were not in any hurry to get those Estimates through.
What has been happening upstairs? Day after day, hour after hour, we have been discussing Clause 1 of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, and it was left to the Opposition to move the Closure. The Government have not armed the Chairman up there with special power to select Amendments. It is
obvious that the Government have been obstructing their own Bill, at any rate, not worrying at all how far they got with it, and now they come down, when they have not even suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule on the consideration of the Estimates, and have obviously been wasting their own time upstairs, and ask us to agree to a Guillotine Motion on a Measure which contains far reaching constitutional changes for which there has been no mandate from the country. I wonder what hon. Members opposite would have said if we had produced this Motion on a Measure of this character and magnitude, and had moved it before we knew whether there was to be any obstruction or not. The Leader of the Opposition reminded the House that when the last Government moved the Guillotine on the Trades Dispute Bill the Opposition walked out. I never thought that was an efficient protest, and we are not going to follow their example, but if we had moved a Motion of this kind on this type of Bill there is nothing which Labour Members would not say about gagging discussion and treating the House in a way it should never be treated.
Let us see what this particular Measure contains. It contains the Alternative Vote; and the Government are allowing one day for its consideration. Every Member of this House has qualms as to whether this method of election is good for the country or not. I will not go into that matter because I should be out of order, but there is no doubt that it would be a great constitutional change, and should be fully discussed. It is not a simple Measure, because there are variants of the Alternative Vote. It will be in order for us, on Clause 1, to move Amendments for the inclusion of these variations. On a very important constitutional change the Government are really playing with the House of Commons. Then we have the abolition of the university constituencies, a matter on which a great many people feel deeply and a matter which was gone into on Second Reading to a certain extent. But there will be many Amendments moved to that Clause. Yet the Government are giving only half a day to Clause 4. That means that they are giving only two hours to the representation of learning, although they are quite
prepared to spend days and days upstairs in obstructing their own Trade Unions Bill.
For what does the House really exist? Of late years the Executive has treated the House as if it were its handmaiden. This House does not exist merely to register the decrees of the Executive Government, but as we go on and the more democratic the Government gets the more inclined is the Government to treat the House merely as a registering authority. This House has never been in that position before. The purpose of this House is to control the Executive, to discuss legislation, and to see, if possible, that Measures are passed only after they have been thoroughly discussed. Of late years we have had complaints from the courts by learned judges about various Acts. This House has been accused of slipshod legislation. The courts have found it extremely difficult to interpret Acts, and interpretations have been given, on the wording which we have passed, which are entirely at variance with the intentions of the Government and of the House. The only way to avoid slipshod legislation is to have thorough discussion of all Measures.
We all know what happens when a Guillotine Motion is produced. Suppose that there are two Clauses to be discussed, and the first Clause takes a very long time, or there is moved some Amendment upon which a real discussion takes place. We are apt to get the Second Clause passed without any discussion at all. Great chunks of legislation which have never been discussed are forced through under the Guillotine. I believe that before the War, when guillotines were in operation, it was very often the fact that the Opposition and the Press referred in their propaganda to the number of lines of a Bill which had been discussed, and the vastly greater number of lines which had had no discussion at all. I do not believe that that is a proper method of legislating. There should be no Guillotine unless it has been shown that the Opposition really intend to obstruct a Measure. For these reasons I oppose the Motion before the House. There has been one omission from our proceedings to-day. We have had a speech from the Treasury Bench and from the Opposition Front Bench, but we have not yet had a speech from the real author
of this particular Guillotine. As I see the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is now engaged in taking notes, I have no doubt that shortly we shall have his contribution to the discussion. But the right hon. Gentleman does not appear for the time being to be very strongly backed up by his own party; they do not seem to have very much interest in this Guillotine. Perhaps they are having a party meeting to decide on their course of action in connection with the Trade Unions Bill.
At the present moment we have a Government which is a minority Government. In the past there have been Governments with very strong majorities in this House, but they have never yet treated the House in the way that this minority Government has treated it. It will be a great temptation to a succeeding strong Government to follow in their footsteps and to take this Motion as a precedent. I do not know how the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would like it if we were to put a strict Guillotine on a Bill for imposing a general tariff, though I have no doubt that he would make a very strong protest. On the other hand, by his action in supporting the Government on this Guillotine, he has certainly given us an ample precedent for adopting the Guillotine the next time we are in power.
It seems to me that this particular Government is not mindful of the rights of private Members. In the "Times" this morning I read a long statement by the Chief Whip. He wanted to bring about some very revolutionary reforms. Among other things he desired that there should he no private Members' Bills and no private Members' time. Surely when we get the Chief Whip of the Government advocating such changes as that, it is time that even his own hack-benchers woke up. I do not believe that anyone in the House desires that the time of private Members should be taken away or their rights removed. The Government are really getting more and more autocratic. As we go on and democracy becomes more powerful, we get in this House Governments which desire to dictate, which desire that the House should he used merely as a registering assembly. They do not desire criticism, but rather to stifle discussion and to
closure Debate, and in the end we have the Chief Whip saying that really private Members' time is of no use any more. For all these reasons I believe that the use of the Guillotine on this occasion does not redound to the credit of the House, and in the Division to be taken later I hope that more hon. Members like the hon. Member for Dundee will he found to stand up for the rights of private Members.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: The Prime Minister when he was giving evidence before the Committee, of which I am a member—the Committee which is examining the procedure of Parliament—stated that he thought that the Guillotine should become the normal method on the Floor of the House in respect of all Government Bills, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was inclined to agree that that would be necessary. But the Prime Minister made one very important qualification. He stated that before introducing the Guillotine a Government ought to try to get an arrangement through the usual channels, and that if the Government could not do that, the Guillotine should always be settled, as regards its different parts, by some body of Members other than the Government, and he suggested the Chairmen's Panel.

The PRIME MINISTER: Not to settle, but to be consulted. The last word would be with the Government.

Sir H. O'NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that some body, such as the Chairmen's Panel, should be consulted and should at any rate have a considerable say as to the form that the Guillotine should take. Now that we have the first Guillotine Motion since the Prime Minister gave that very important evidence, we can say that it would have been desirable if he had adopted the method of consulting some independent body of Members of the House, such as the Chairmen's Panel. Then, if they had proposed what was held generally to be a reasonable allocation of time, there would not have been the opposition that there is to-day to this particular Motion. Yesterday, as has been stated, the Chief Whip of the Government gave some equally interesting and rather remarkable evidence before the same Committee. He
said that the time of Parliament was largely being wasted, that Members were terribly obstructive, that obstruction should be prevented at all costs, and that there should be no private Members' time at all; and he made various other suggestions, the effect of which, as far as I can see, would be to withdraw from the Floor of the House a very large measure of discussion of anything at all important—it was all to go to Committees sitting upstairs.
However, that is not germane to this particular Motion, except to show that the whole tendency of the present Government is to try to curtail and baulk discussion, and to prevent legitimate criticism by the Opposition. As I am later to move an Amendment with regard to the details of the Motion, I will not detain the House longer now. It is, however, very essential that on an important Bill of this kind the Guillotine Motion, if it is to be moved, should not be moved at this stage unless some such suggestion as the Prime Minister put forward, for consulting independent Members of the House, has been adopted.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I understood the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) claimed that the Prime Minister had every reason to be grateful to him for his speech. It is probably true that during the wearing time of the last two years the Prime Minister has learned to be grateful for very small mercies, but even so I can hardly imagine him being grateful for a speech which resembled perhaps even more the open foe than the candid friend. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, in the main, was directed to the point that in this country Parliamentary institutions have sunk to a depth of public indifference which they have never reached before, and he presumed that the kind of discussion which would take place on this Bill—discussion which he had not had the chance of judging—would be the kind of discussion which had led Parliamentary institutions to sink. I think he touched on the real reason for the degradation of Parliament in public estimation to-day when he contrasted the comparative importance of the Bills which year by year his right hon. Friends are enabled to find time to introduce into this House, and the Bill
for the discussion of which the Prime Minister is allowing only five days.
5.0 p.m.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the Motion itself originated in scandal. We shall have the spectacle of the House day by day discussing a proposal to increase the electoral chances of two of the three parties in the House of Commons. I agree it is a scandal that we should have to discuss this Bill, a Bill of which the main features are wanted by none, and of which the minor features are wanted only by those who wish for some profit from it. But because it is a bad Bill there is no reason why it should not be properly discussed. You are not going to whittle away the scandal of the Bill itself by the added scandal of baulked discussion and a bullied Opposition. It has always been a principle common to all parties that the Guillotine has been regarded as a weapon to be used only in the last resort, and that the Guillotine Motion is one which the Government bring forward with some hesitation and in the expectation of a certain amount of criticism and resentment. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition told us, that in the days before the War the Liberal party had shown rather a greater tendency than others to its use. I think probably we can explain that. The trouble is that the Liberals are very good people, and they want other people to be very good, too, and, when you get very good people wanting to make other people very good, they are apt to go beyond limits which rather bad people would never seek to do. That perhaps explains why the Liberals to-day are equally ready to use the Guillotine for the necks of their enemies or for the backs of their friends. But they must not allow those blood-lusts to run away with them.
It is clear from the records of this party in the last Parliament that we resorted to the Guillotine Resolution only in special circumstances and under carefully-defined rules. On two occasions we resorted to it on complicated Bills, only after the course of several days' discussion had shown an obstructive tendency in the Opposition. On the other two occasions there were reasons of time and urgency which made it necessary to introduce the Guillotine. I think that up to
now right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have shared the same view of the Guillotine, that it is a necessary part of our Parliamentary procedure, that there are occasions when it must be used, but that those occasions should be limited as far as possible, and that it should never be allowed to grow into a permanent custom.
It is really difficult to reconcile the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the occasion of the Trade Disputes Bill and the speech which has just been made by the Prime Minister. It is a terrible dilemma in which we are placed. If we take those two speeches side by side and read them together, we are forced to the conclusion that either the speech of the Home Secretary three years ago was humbug or that the speech of the Prime Minister to-day was humbug—or both. The Motion and the circumstances in which the Motion has been introduced to-day show an astounding change from the spirit in which the Motion, introduced under far less rigorous conditions, was opposed by the Home Secretary only three or four years ago.
Do not let us forget that, in this Motion to-day, the Government have broken with precedent. Hon. Members opposite may well think that that is a matter for congratulation, because the Government have shown no tendency to break with precedent up to now. They have shown us rather a "tram" than a "'bus" mentality, a desire to move along precedent grooves. What really frightens me about the Motion is the circumstances under which it is made. The lack of any attempt to see whether obstruction is likely to be made to this Bill, and the complete absence of any apology with which the Prime Minister moved this Resolution only goes to carry out that advice which he gave to the Committee upstairs the other day, the advice that Guillotine procedure should not be a rare procedure reserved for occasions of great emergency or to beat down unreasonable obstruction, but should be the normal method under which this House of Commons should discuss any legislative proposal.
The great safety of the Opposition up to now, even under a Guillotine Motion, has lain in the exceptional character of that form of procedure and the fact that
the Government dislike bringing it in. The Opposition is usually treated very fairly in the allocation of time, but, if this is to be treated as an ordinary matter of course, if every Bill is going to be preceded by a Guillotine Motion, if it becomes a commonplace of the Chief Whip's arrangement of Government business, you will see that generosity towards the Opposition gradually whittled down. The Prime Minister thinks that he has been fair in the allocation of time which he has made to us in this matter. The Noble Lord who preceded me pointed out that in his opinion it gave inadequate time, but the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) thought that the Prime Minister had gone much too far and that the time should have been cut down by half.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said the Bill ought to have been sent upstairs.

Mr. STANLEY: Yes; or if the Bill were left on the Floor of the House the Eve days allocated to it would be excessive. Hon. Members have to look forward to a time when the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be changing places, when a similar Guillotine Motion will be introduced by him, and when, therefore, his ideas of generosity will be applied to a reluctant Opposition. I do feel that, if the House of Commons is to drift into an attitude when the Guillotine Motion is to be the normal method of procedure, then some such suggestion as was put forward by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) will have to be adopted and the time-table for the Guillotine Motion will, to some extent, have to be taken out of the hands of the Leader of the House and placed in the power of some neutral body who will be able to preserve the rights of the Opposition from a new procedure which may well grow into a real danger.
I was hoping that the Prime Minister, after the words which he used to the Committee, would have shown some signs of accommodation, that he would have done what he said ought to be done, and that he would have taken the advice of an independent body. But I hope the House of Commons, if it is going to follow the precedent which has to-day been established, will see that the rights
of the Opposition are preserved by some independent body of that kind. Finally, do not let us think that a Motion of this sort is going to restore the prestige and the power of Parliament, that merely curtailing the opportunities of back bench Members to discuss legislation is going to restore the faith of this country in the House of Commons. It wants something a great deal more vital than that. First it wants vital and important Bills, not merely huckstering arrangements between political parties. It means that the Government, in the words of one of its own supporters, will have to show either the inward and invisible signs of strength to govern or the outward and visible signs of grace which will allow it to resign.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like to intervene only a few moments in this discussion because, as ane who is now a pretty old Member of the House of Commons, I feel that the two speeches which have been made in support of this Motion have put forward some contentions which are so extraordinary and indeed so dissonant with the facts and so inconsistent with logic that one cannot forbear from a word or two of comment. The Prime Minister—and this was indeed the foundation of his case—opened with the statement that no large Measure could, under present conditions, go through this House without some form of Closure, and he added,
it therefore only remains for me to discuss the form of time-table which the House desires.
That contains two complete fallacies in logic. The first of these statements is completely inconsistent with the facts. On the contrary, it is not more than four years ago, and I rather think only three years ago, that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) got the whole of a large Finance Bill through the House without ever moving the ordinary Closure once. As for saying that a large and fiercely-contested Measure necessarily involves the use of the Guillotine, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman—and I should have reminded the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) if he were here—that he got the whole of his 1909 Budget without resorting to the Guillotine after 109 days of discussion. That goes far to show that
the statement of the Prime Minister is not consistent with facts.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But he got nothing else except that Measure during that Session.

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Would the hon. and gallant Member rather have had the Trade Disputes Bill on the Floor of this House than this Bill? Why did he vote for sending that Bill upstairs? The hon. and gallant Gentleman must make up which horse he is riding.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wanted both Bills sent upstairs, both this Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill, and I want all Bills to be sent upstairs. My objection to the long time taken, the 109 days which have been mentioned, is that that might have been all very well for the slow old Governments before the War, but it meant that no other legislation was got through during the Session.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to send all Bills upstairs, what does he want the House of Commons to occupy itself with?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Second Readings of Bills.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In other words, we are to spend our time in this House in shovelling Bills through in order that Committees upstairs may incinerate them. I confess that that is not my idea of the functions of the House of Commons and I shall be surprised to hear that it is the idea of the majority of Members of the House of Commons. The next step in the Prime Minister's argument was equally faulty in logic. Having said that some form of Closure was necessary he led the House to assume that the Guillotine is the only form of Closure which remains. That is quite a new view for the Prime Minister to hold. It is not the view which he used to hold. It is not the view which he held when the Kangaroo Closure was first introduced. It was pressed on the attention of the House as being most reasonable, because it would be, in large measure, a substitute for the use of the Guillotine and that was the Prime Minister's view then. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of evidence
which he gave before a Committee on Procedure—not the other day, but on a previous occasion:
I have come to be a very strong opponent of what is known as closure by departments. I think it is the very worst form of closure. On the other hand, I have come to be a very strong supporter of what is known as the Kangaroo Closure.
At all events I am justified in saying that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his views since those days.

The PRIME MINISTER: In those days I regarded this as a necessity—a painful necessity—and I have not changed my view at all. It is absolutely necessary on account of the development of the Procedure of this House.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What has tended to occur in this House has been the curtailment rather than the extension of the liberty of speech. I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. One might have understood it had we started the discussion on this Bill and had the right hon. Gentleman found himself unable to make progress. But that is not the fact. He comes to the House before we have started to discuss the Bill and he produces this scheme. Indeed he goes further and asks, "What is the use of a flood of talk since this principle has already been discussed over and over again?" The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) makes it worse when he proceeds to analyse that statement and when he suggests that while it is true that the principles have been discussed some of them have only been discussed in previous Parliaments and not in this Parliament. It is a new proposition that because a thing has been discussed in a previous Parliament the present Parliament should refuse to consider it further.
As regards a large part of this Bill, not only the principles but the details are all-important. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is the only supporter of the right hon. Gentleman who has so far taken part in this Debate, and he thinks that the Prime Minister has been too generous and is giving us too much time. Consider the time which is being allotted. For the Alternative Vote, which is a revolution, a change in the system of representation which has lasted for centuries in this country, we are allotted four and a half
hours and the hon. and gallant Member thinks that is too much. Double Member constituencies which were instituted under the Reform Bill of 1832 are now, with one exception, to be abolished in three and a-half hours. The Business Premises Vote instituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1918 is now to be abolished in three hours. University constituencies, which are not without importance and interest to large sections in this House and to all sections of political opinion—[Interruption.] I may remind hon. Members opposite that in 1918 when the franchise was revised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and was put on what I may call a 1918 basis, the number of university constituencies was actually increased. That is not, however, a matter which can be discussed now and all I am pointing out is that a subject of such importance and magnitude as the university constituencies is allowed the generous provision of three and a-half hours under this Motion.
It is no use talking about principles being settled. When it comes to the actual working of the Alternative Vote proposal, the machinery is all-important and the machinery, according to this proposal, is to be settled in three hours. The truth of the matter is that when one comes to analyse this Time-table the provision made is ludicrous. It is a pretence at allotting time for discussion. It is a ridiculous farce. It is obvious that we cannot attempt to discuss these matters properly in the time allowed and all that the right hon. Gentleman desires is that this House should become a machine for registering the decrees which he thinks proper and right to put before us. Indeed he tells us that the country is tired of talk and wants action. I should think more of that argument if I did not remember that one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues used the same phrase to support exactly the contrary argument when a similar Guillotine Motion was moved in connection with the Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921. The right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade then said:
What would impel many of us to oppose this Guillotine Resolution? I say sincerely and frankly to the Government"—
that is the Coalition Government—
that I think the representive principle in this country is in considerable danger. It is being attacked by a very large and increasing number of people on the ground that, after they have subscribed to the representative principle and have elected this House of Commons they are denied that free discussion and full investigation of public issues which they thought they had earned."—"OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1921; col. 110, Vol. 143.]
If quotations are to be prayed in aid, I commend that one to the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he has any mandate from the country for this Bill? I have asked him on a previous occasion from whom he had a mandate. If any hon. Member examines the election addresses of Members of the Government and reads through "Labour and the Nation"—that is perhaps rather a waste of time in these days, for much water has flowed under the mill since it was published—I do not think he will find in the election addresses, and I am certain he will not find in "Labour and the Nation," a single word suggesting that a Bill of this character was to be brought before the House of Commons. Perhaps there is some truth in the statement that the country is tired of talk and wants action. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull got nearer to the point. If the House of Commons were congested with work to deal with unemployment, to deal with dumping, to deal with some of the other economic problems with which we on this side are so intimately and keenly concerned, then one might agree that there was cause for the introduction of a proposal of this kind. But in the present circumstances I can only repeat that the arguments, so far advanced by the Prime Minister and by the only supporter of the right hon. Gentleman who has spoken so far afford no justification for what is an outrage on the right of free speech in this House.

Major GLYN: I always looked upon the Prime Minister as one of those Members of Parliament who was most jealous of the time of Private Members. But if Private Members' time is to be taken much more, if the power of the Exceutive is to be made greater than it is by restricting the freedom of Debate, it will make business in this House less an affair of the people, and of the representation of the people and more an affair of the Executive and people will not be
encouraged to come into this House if they are to be mere voting machines, if they are to troop through the Lobbies as occasionally required by whatever Government may be in office. There is also a danger of Bills being discussed in Parliament which are not of the least interest to the people outside. We must all be aware that when we go to the constituencies we find that the people are not interested in the Alternative Vote. A few Liberal organisers may be interested in it, but even supposing that the Liberal party's rosiest dreams come true, and they get a 15 per cent. increase, is it worth while giving the attention of Parliament to a Measure of this sort when so many other important Measures are kept out of discussion?
There is an even more important aspect of the matter. I look upon the use of the Guillotine for the furtherance of arrangements between parties inside Parliament as a very sinister move. I believe that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) said there was no bargain and, indeed the Prime Minister himself said there was no bargain, so naturally we realise that there can be no bargain. But in the words of the hon. Member for Dundee there is an arrangement of some sort and it gives us cause to think very deeply as to why this particular Measure, which is not desired by either of the main parties in this House, but only by the Liberal party, as a matter of party adjustment within the House of Commons, is to be forced through by means of a Parliamentary machine which should be very sparingly used. All of us who want to maintain the honour of Parliament and the freedom of debate must realise that, if constitutional means are to be used in the settlement of important questions, the great matter is to see that the rights of private Members and the machinery of Parliament are continued on traditional lines while being made suitable, no doubt, to modern conceptions and the rush of public business. I was amazed to read the evidence given at the Committee on Procedure by the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. If his evidence is typical of the views of those responsible far getting business through this House, it means an end to freedom of debate. A party which is proud of its Measures
is not afraid of discussion in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister may say that three hours are being allowed to discuss a particular section of this Bill, but it must be remembered of that time probably three-quarters of an hour will be occupied by a speech from the Treasury Bench and that will be followed by another speech from the Front Opposition Bench probably of equal length, and then possibly by another speech from the Liberal party's Front Bench. As a result something like an hour and a half will be left for back-benchers in all parts of the House, less the time occupied in a Division. In the history of this House the one thing about which Members of Parliament have been jealous has been the rights of private Members, and the only possible excuse, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, for the use of the Guillotine is a factious Opposition and an obvious desire on the part of the Opposition to block a Measure which is urgently required by the Government to meet an emergency or to satisfy public opinion. Nothing in the speeches in the last General Election foreshadowed anything in the nature of this Bill. One or two things have been left out of the Bill for which we might have been afforded time, and the main thing that survives is the Alternative Vote, which has never been discussed in this Parliament. It is an astonishing view of Parliament that, if a matter has been discussed in previous Parliaments, it is to be assumed that there has been sufficient and adequate discussion for the present Parliament. The whole complexion of Parliament should and ought to change—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Education (Local Authorities) Act, 1931.
2. China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1931.
3. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1931.
4. Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1931.
5. Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1931.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the second word 'the,' in line 1, stand part of the Question."

Major GLYN: The point I had reached in my remarks when the procedure of the House interrupted me, was that on these occasions when the matter under discussion in a Bill is a matter of party arrangement and of party character, it is more than usually essential that full Debate should be allowed and that there should be no idea in the country that something is being done under the cloak of Parliamentary procedure. I am satisfied that hon. Members belonging to the Socialist party, when they go to their constituencies, will find it difficult to defend the fact that matters concerning unemployment, trade disputes, and other questions have not been discussed publicly on the Floor of the House—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Rouse counted, and 40 Members being present—

Major GLYN: It is not often that a Member has the opportunity of making three speeches on one subject. We are debating the rights of private Members and whether or not we are to submit calmly to those rights being curtailed. The Leader of the Opposition, in opposing the Prime Minister, made it clear that whenever the weapon of the Guillotine was employed when our party were in Office, it was only done when there had been proved opposition. That certainly cannot be said of this Bill. If we are to attempt to discuss Measures of first importance in Committee upstairs, and have another Measure of constitutional importance on the Floor of the House under the Guillotine, the Government will deprive certain constituencies of any opportunity of taking part in a matter which intimately concerns them. It will allow only a very few hours for the discussion of university representation, to give one example, and that will be but little satisfaction to the people who are affected. Judging by the letters one receives, a great many individuals who reside in the Crown Colonies look upon the representation they get through
their university qualification as their only chance of any say in the government of that part of the Empire in which they reside. I am astonished that more Members of the Socialist party are not rising to defend the right of free speech, and I can only assume they have had to curtail their enthusiasm in order to retain themselves and their Government in office, at the will of those for whose favours, and only for whose favours, this Bill is to be forced through the House.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I intervene for two minutes only to say a word in answer to the challenge of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) that there is no respect for the rights of free speech on this side of the House. It is true that only one hon. Gentleman on these benches has intervened to express a view of this Motion, and I rise merely to say that, without adopting the reasons or the methods of advocacy of the hon. and gallant Member, that in the main his argument is supported by every Member on these benches. These are not days in which the rights of free speech and free discussion should be disregarded, and, so long as I have the honour to be here, if ever I think the right of free speech is being infringed I shall not hesitate to express indignation about it, and no official frown will interfere with that expression. But I am satisfied that in the present case the course which the Government commend to the House is a right course. It is contested by hon. Gentlemen opposite only for rhetorical purposes. They are as fully acquainted with the facts as I am. All matters raised by this Bill have been discussed in the House again and again. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. I hope he is not shaking his head at anything I have said.
All the questions raised by the Bill were discussed at some length on the Second Reading. We had the advantage of hearing hon. Gentlemen opposite state and relate their reasons against the proposals of this Bill, and we are quite familiar with their views, and it is idle for them to suggest that those matters require any further considerable discussion. It is true that the Bill raises a very important question in the alternative vote, but the pros and cons of that question were set before us on Second
Reading, and most of us have made up our minds about it. Therefore, I desire to congratulate the Government on the course they are taking. I agree entirely, if I may say so with respect, with the observation of the Prime Minister that the country is expecting the business of this House to be conducted more expeditiously, and I am satisfied that the course the Government are taking is directed to that end, and properly directed to that end. For that reason I propose to support this Motion, and that, I am certain, is the intention of every hon. Member sitting on these benches.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) stated that the country was anxious that the business of this House should be carried on more expeditiously. I think he is right there, but the people who take that view are not thinking of an electoral reform Bill, but of Measures which might be of some use in helping them to find employment. They are not looking to this House to pass expeditiously a Measure such as this. The Prime Minister told us that he had no apologies to make for this Measure. When he was addressing recently a big meeting and was referring to the conditions in the country, he said on that occasion also that he had no apologies to make. The country, however, may not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He himself may have no apologies to make, but some of his back bench supporters are making a good many apologies for the Labour Government. The Prime Minister suggested that the Guillotine would be the normal procedure in future. That is a very dangerous precedent, and particularly dangerous under present conditions. I can understand a Prime Minister with a large majority wanting to pass an important Measure in a hurry and resorting to the Guillotine; that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do; but let us consider what may happen if this procedure is to be regularly adopted.
We have a minority Government, supported by a small party below the Gangway on this side. Together they are attempting to force through the House a Measure which the country has never been asked to sanction, which was not mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's election address, or in "Labour and the
Nation." The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has a small group in the House. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has a small group in the House. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) has another small group in the House, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) also has a small group here. In the future this House may be made up of a lot of small groups, and those groups may come together, as the Liberals and the Government have done to-day, and may agree together on Measures about which the public have not been consulted. They may do what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do to-day, that is, set up a guillotine to force through the House of Commons without proper discussion Measures which have not the sanction of the country but are merely agreed to by those groups. That is why I say we are setting up a dangerous precedent if a minority Government are to join with another small party to bring in a Guillotine Motion and force such a Measure as this through the House.
How did the Bill itself originate? It originated in Lord Ullswater's Committee. When that Committee was set up the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other parties felt that anything to do with electoral reform ought to be carried through on non-party lines that there ought to be a general agreement between all parties as to any electoral reform to be carried out. Lord Ullswater's Committee was set up to go into that question, but it could not agree on any Measure. What has the right hon. Gentleman done in those circumstances? He has brought in a partisan Measure, a Measure with loaded dice, and he is trying to force it through the House by means of a Guillotine Motion. What is the urgency for this Measure? I think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is the originator of this Guillotine proceeding. Not long ago he told us that he was always ready to support a Guillotine Motion if he agreed with the Bill to which it was being applied. The urgency lies in the fact that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs does not want to have to keep the Government in office too long. He wants to get the Bill through as quickly as he possibly can,
and when that has been done he can then help to turn the Government out at the earliest moment. Why do the Government accept this proposal from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs? Because the Prime Minister wishes to be kept in office. He is frightened of the people. He is terrified of going to the country to ask them for a verdict on his administration, and that is why he is ready to join with the Leader of the Liberal party and ready to pass this Measure under the Guillotine. What we see happening now may go on for some time. It is rather like the spectacle of two drowning men clutching at each other and trying to save each other. What is going to happen to them in the end is that both will be drowned.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHAN: I would appeal most earnestly to the Government to allow a more ample and generous measure of discussion upon this important Bill. I am particularly concerned with Clauses 4 and 5. I agree with the Prime Minister that the people are looking to the House for a more expeditious discharge of business, but surely expeditiousness must stop short at inadequacy. Clause 4 raises a bigger question, a more fundamental question, than any other Clause in the Bill, yet it is proposed to take Clauses 4 and 5 in a half-day. It is true that Clause 5 is a mere machinery Clause, but Clause 4 raises a fundamental matter of democratic government. University representation raises the whole question of regional as opposed to occupational representation. That is a matter of grave difficulty, which sooner or later must be considered seriously by this House. Can it be argued that the Debate on the Second Reading exhausted that question? Is it proposed to push through in three an a-half hours this large matter? It is a question which, I believe, raises great difficulty in the country amongst certain classes, and the number of petitions against the Bill proves that. Apart from opposition from the universities, we have had opinion expressed by some of the most eminent leaders of opinion in the country against this Clause. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I do appeal to the Government to give the matter serious attention, and to extend to this Clause a more
generous consideration, since it raises what seems to me to be fundamental questions which affect the Government more than do any other Clauses in the Bill.

Miss RATHBONE: I am one of those who agree with nearly everything that has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the great waste of time that takes place through unnecessary Debate in this House. I suggest that the great liberality of the discussion upon utterly trivial issues serves only to bring into stronger relief the inadequate measure of time which is being meted out in regard to a Bill which, whether we like it or not—I am one who agrees with some parts of the Bill, and disagrees with other parts—makes a fundamental change in the constitution of this country. Last night we spent about as much time discussing the protection of grey seals as is allotted in this time-table to the abolition of university franchise. A few days ago as long a discussion took place over details of expenditure in two minor Government Departments as is here given to so great a change in the electoral system as the introduction of the alternative vote. This Bill proposes constitutional changes of extreme complexity and, in spite of what the Prime Minister has said about these changes having many times been discussed before, I would like to point out that the whole circumstances have changed since franchise problems were last discussed.
The very brief discussion which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill revealed how little clear understanding there was on the subject of the alternative vote, and how much room there was for a difference of opinion as to how a scheme of that kind would work. Some of those who wrote in the newspapers made elaborate criticisms, and many points of view were brought forward by those who oppose and by those who support the alternative vote. In those circumstances, surely we are entitled to ask that time enough should be given to that important subject to allow Amendments to be moved which would bring into relief the advantages and disadvantages of other proposals for meeting the anomalies which the alternative vote attempts to remedy. It is an open secret
that those responsible for bringing forward the alternative vote would have preferred proportional representation, and that they are accepting the alternative vote because they could not secure agreement in regard to proportional representation.
It may be said that university representation, to which the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) has referred, concerns only some 12 constituencies, but it concerns a principle of representation which has lasted in this country since the reign of James I. It is a principle which was extended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as lately as 1918. Under this Motion it is proposed to devote to the proposal for abolition, and to another Clause, less than 3½ hours. One would have thought that the present Government had enough difficulties already without going out of their way to abolish university franchise. Scattered as they are all over every territorial constituency to the number of about 200 voters in every constituency of 60,000 electors, those exercising the university franchise may not seem a very formidable voting force. But many of them belong to occupations which have hitherto very rightly exercised considerable influence in the councils of the nation. Their influence is to be swept away by the abolition of university representation, although I am aware that the individual graduates are not to be completely disfranchised. They are still to retain their voting strength of 200 votes. What real guarantee does that give them of being able properly to represent the great occupations to which they belong? The representation of great interests and of expert opinion and specialist points of view is bound up in this question of university representation.
The indignation which this proposal has excited in the occupation to which the graduates belong must be familiar to every hon. Member in whose constituency there is an appreciable number of graduates. The fact that the Government is going out of its way to abolish university representation seems to show astonishing aptitude in the gentle art of making enemies, and this is accentuated by the proposal to reduce a discussion of this subject by a very inadequate provision in the time-table. Perhaps they acted in the spirit of saying:
If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.
While I do not disagree with the application of the Guillotine, I would very strongly appeal to the Government to allow considerably more discussion of the university question and more time for the consideration of the other Clauses of this Bill. The Clauses of the Bill dealing with motor cars raise all sorts of difficulties and technical points which require more time for discussion than is accorded under this Motion, and I appeal to the Government to reconsider their programme.

Mr. ATKINSON: It seems to me one of the great disappointments of our procedure that more and more we are becoming simply instruments for registering the decrees of the executive. A Minister brings in a Measure conferring great powers on his Department, and the Bill is generally forced through the House. Amendments are rejected whether they are good or bad, and hon. Members are not permitted to vote as they think right. The only thing that remains is the right of speech and criticism. We know that the exercise of that right frequently does good, because very often weaknesses are discovered and put right by the Minister at a later stage. No one can deny that the opportunities which are given for a free and adequate examination of any question are of the utmost value, and it is the only right that remains in this House.
No Guillotine Motion ought to be introduced unless it is to meet a case of urgency or obstruction. There is no suggestion of urgency in this case, and the Prime Minister did not say a word to justify this Motion. There was no suggestion of urgency, want of time, or anything of that sort. When a Guillotine Motion is introduced, there can be no justification for it, unless it is that there is not time for adequate discussion. That is a test which the Prime Minister has laid down, and I will deal with it. The Motion says that five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill. That is a mistake, because the time table gives only 4½ days. A closer examination of the proposal shows that it is only four days, because the Bill as it stands has to be completed by the end of the fourth day, and the fifth day is devoted to the new Clauses and Schedules,
and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion. How that can be described as giving five allotted days to the Committee stage I cannot understand.
I observe that 4½ hours are allowed for the discussion of the first Clause, and I assume that half an hour will have to be devoted to the Instructions. That leaves four hours for the consideration of the Clause. In that short space of time three different parties in the House will have to present their views on Clause 1. If the Conservative party gets a fair share of the time it will have allotted to it 1½ hours. In that limited time we have to deal not merely with the merits of the Clause, and its results, but we have also to deal with the Committee stage. There is not merely the consideration of the Clause, but there is the moving of Amendments. The whole point of the Committee stage is that people's proposals for amending the Clause are to be considered, and in that short space of an hour and a half the Opposition have to bring forward, discuss and support every one of the Amendments which they would wish to see incorporated in the Clause. On the top of that, some time has to be left, I suppose, for the Debate on the Clause standing part. In this short space of an hour and a half, therefore, every suggested Amendment coming from our party, every argument to be advanced in favour of any one of those Amendments and the consideration of the Clause as a whole, its merits, its motives and its results, have all to be included. I say with the utmost confidence that I do not believe there is a Member in this House who would even pretend to think that that space of time is sufficient for the adequate consideration of that Clause and of the Amendments to it which will be on the Paper. I do not believe that there is one Member who would venture to suggest any such thing.
For Clause 3, which deals with the question of the abolition of the business premises qualification, the long period of three hours is permitted, that is to say, one hour for each party. I repeat that it is a question of the consideration, not merely of the principle of the Clause, but of every Amendment, and let it be noted that one exception to this Clause is permitted, namely, the City of London. That
at once raises the right of every important city to have its claims to similar treatment considered. How can it be said that, in that short space of one hour which will be the fair share of the time for the party to which I belong, the claims of the various cities in the country can be even presented, let alone considered If it had been said that there should be no exception at all, and if that had been accepted as a principle, well and good; but that there can be an exception is admitted by the Clause itself, and, therefore, that necessarily involves the right of other cities to receive similar consideration for their own peculiar position. There is also involved here the very serious question whether the vote of every great city in this country is to be turned unto a vote of caretakers and charwomen, or whether the people who really run the business of the city are to be permitted to continue to be represented.
The Clause which deals with the abolition of university constituencies has already been referred to, and I will not repeat what has been said about it, except to add this testimony of my own, that I do not think I have ever received more letters from constituents about anything than I have received in connection with this proposed change. There is obviously a very strong feeling in the country about it. The special position and claims of each of the universities ought to be considered, and again I repeat that, if we divide up the time between the various parties, there will be somewhat less than an hour for the consideration of the case which our party would present on that matter. Test it as you will, I do not think anybody can contradict with any degree of honesty the statement that it is an absurdity to suggest that any one of these Clauses, with the various Amendments that we want to bring forward, can possibly receive any consideration at all.
There is one other matter which has been alluded to, and which imposes a greater duty upon the Opposition in connection with this Bill than is usually imposed upon it. This Bill is not being introduced because of its merits; there is no suggestion that it is. It is not being introduced because it is wanted; it is not being introduced because the
Government think it is good. If the Government introduce a Bill because they think it is a good Bill, there may be something to be said for trying to hurry it along, but no one suggests that this Bill is introduced because the Government like it, or because they think it is good. Everybody knows that it is being introduced for the purpose of paying a price. Whether you call it a bargain or whether you call it an understanding, it is by common consent a bribe to try to purchase the support of the party below the Gangway. When a Bill is brought in under conditions of that kind, and for motives of that kind, surely the duty imposed on the main Opposition becomes more and more imperative. All the greater duty is imposed upon them to show where the Bill is going to lead, to expose its results, and to show what it is aimed at.
In this Bill every conceivable thing is done which it is thought may militate against one of the parties in the State. It is a Bill for reducing the, representation of interests, and trying to cut it down to a matter of mere numbers. All the direct taxation in this country is paid by about 2 per cent. of the people, and everything is done in this Bill to reduce the size of the voice which that 2 per cent. has. Therefore, I say that, when a Bill is brought in for these purposes and with these motives, it becomes more and more our duty to analyse it to the very utmost, and I protest against the cutting down of the time that will he available to us for the performance of this duty. It will certainly be successful in preventing the adequate exposure of the results of what I venture to think is a very disreputable bargain.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: I desire to support the view which has already been expressed by other representatives of universities. We do seriously take exception, as I think fairly, to the fact that under this Guillotine Motion only two-and-a-half hours are to be allowed for the whole of the discussion of the principle of university representation. That principle dates back, as everybody knows, to the time of James I, and to my mind it has a much wider signification than the mere presence of 12 or more Members in this House. It raises the whole question of the principles upon which this
House should be constituted, and to dismiss that question in a mere matter of two-and-a-half hours is, in my opinion, quite wrong. I appeal to the Government to give us at least a whole day for the discussion of Clause 4.
I cannot help feeling that an altogether wrong interpretation is placed upon the presence of university representatives in this House. It has been suggested that university representation is a very easy road to Parliament, and that for that reason we wish to retain it. It has, however, nothing to do with that question. It is a question of the principles upon which this country should be governed, and of whether particular interests should be represented or not. That, however, is a question which had better be discussed in Committee rather than on this occasion.
I desire to criticise the remark which was made by one hon. Member to the effect that everything that it could possibly be necessary to say on this subject had already been said in the Second Reading Debate. That is an altogether wrong idea as to the object of the Committee stage. In the case of a Bill of this character, we cannot make any amendment or suggest any alteration of the Bill whatever on the Second Reading. It is only possible to do that during the Committee stage, and, surely, therefore, a reasonable time must be allowed for Amendments to be discussed and for reasons to be given as to why they should or should not be included in the Bill. All the arguments of the hon. Member in that connection would tend rather to suggest a change in the procedure of the House, involving the abolition of the Committee stage and permitting the amendment of a Bill on Second Reading. For this and for other reasons, and especially because of the short time that it is proposed to give to Clause 4, I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government will give us a whole day for that Clause.

Captain CAZALET: I realise that in a discussion of this kind it is not always possible to avoid a certain amount of repetition of what has been already said, but I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to a very few observations, which I hope will not include any repetition. I admit that it is pure hypocrisy for Members of any party in the House, when they happen to be sitting on this side, to
oppose the Guillotine in principle. It is obvious that, as long as Parliament exists in its present form, every Government must introduce at one time or another the principle of the Guillotine if it desires to carry certain Measures through. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) thought that this Bill ought not to have been discussed in Committee on the Floor of this House, but ought to have been sent upstairs. That question, however, it is not our business to decide, and, as it has been decided that the Bill shall be discussed in Committee of the Whole House, we maintain that adequate and proper provision should be made for that discussion, and that the proposals of the Government do not give us that adequate and proper time which we think is necessary. We say that the Prime Minister might surely have waited to see whether the Opposition was going to obstruct so as to necessitate the introduction of the Guillotine, or whether that sweet reasonableness which has always been so intimately associated with the party on these benches would not have prevailed and avoided the necessity for the introduction of a Motion of this kind.
After all, we on these benches are the people who are going to be affected by this Bill. As was pointed out in the discussion on the Second Reading, almost every Clause in the Bill, whatever its merits or demerits may be, has at least one object, and that is to trim the Tory electorate; in some way or other it is going to act to the detriment of the Conservative party in this country; and, therefore, it is quite natural that we should desire a full and unfettered discussion of every Clause, and every detail of every Clause in the Bill.
There is one aspect of the Guillotine to which I desire to draw attention. Under the Guillotine it very often happens that the best Amendments are not discussed at all, whole portions of the Bill going by without any comments being made upon them whatever. As every Member knows, when the Debates are begun, discussions arise on all kinds of subsidiary matters. Occasionally Members are called to order, points of Order are raised, and even, at times, there may be repetition of arguments that have already been put; and then, before what is, perhaps, the most im-
portant and vital Amendment on the Order Paper has been reached, the Guillotine falls. Moreover, once the Guillotine Motion has been carried, Members supporting the Government are encouraged to speak. We know very well that the Whips, who usually are so anxious that their supporters should not delay discussion and raise new points, then say to their Members, "By all means speak on this subject; the Guillotine falls at half-past seven." [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know that?"] We do know that the Whips will tell their Members to speak on the matter and support every Clause, because, while it cannot delay the proceedings, the Opposition will be thereby deprived of their usual custom and practice of getting more than a fair share of the Debate when a matter like this is being discussed.
The view of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull appeared to be that this Bill was of no importance whatsoever in regard to dealing with the national crisis with which we are faced to-day. It does not give employment to a single man or woman; it does not help to solve the unemployment problem; it does not help to restore confidence in trade or industry. If it did, it would be quite reasonable and understandable that a Guillotine Motion should be introduced, although, if it were really going to do something to restore confidence or remedy unemployment, it would be quite unnecessary to introduce a Guillotine Motion, since Members on these benches would then be only too anxious to assist the Government in getting their Measure through. As, however, it does not do these things, we do not see why we should be deprived of our rights of discussion and baulked of our legitimate privileges as private Members of this House.
As to what influence or pressure may have been brought to bear upon the Government to take this action, we know nothing for certain, but we suspect much. If the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) are in any degree true, then certainly our suspicions are by no means groundless. We believe that this Guillotine proposal of the Government is neither reasonable in its allocation of time nor in conformity with
the best traditions of Parliamentary procedure, in that it has been introduced before the Government have ascertained whether there is going to be obstruction on this question or not, and we think that it will not be, and is not, conducive either to the effective working of Parliament or to the improvement of what we believe to be a thoroughly bad Bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I wish to say a few words about the iniquitous innovation of the Socialist party in bringing in the Guillotine on a Measure of this sort. I suppose there has been in our time no Bill that has affected all our constituents more than this Bill will. Nearly every Clause in one way or another affects them, and they will want to know, not only the arguments on all sides, but what we particularly did or said to prevent certain suggestions that are put forward in the Bill going through. Take, for instance, the Alternative Vote. That will alter the whole system of Parliamentary elections if it reaches the Statute Book. Surely every elector will want to know how it was that that came about. "Why was it arranged?" "Did you approve of it or did you not?" "Did you say anything about it, and what did you say in the House if you disagreed?" Our constituents are anxious to know not what other people said, but what we ourselves said on an ordinary Bill that goes through the House. It may be a question of unemployment, which strikes at the very heart of the country, but it may not affect each individual constituent, whereas this Bill does and, therefore, each individual elector will want to know our viewpoint and whether we were for or against it.
Then with regard to the University Vote, many of us have received dozens of letters from people in our constituencies who have a University Vote, all of whom are asking us for our views and asking us to express them in the House. When the day comes for the discussion of the University Vote I, at any rate, shall not be called upon by the Speaker, because I have nothing to do with universities. He will, obviously, call upon others who, he considers, perhaps rightly—it is in his jurisdiction, in any case—have a greater right to speak for them than I have and, owing to the curtailment of time, it will be quite impossible to call on other people who
have a general viewpoint and speak for a hundred or more university electors, but who have not any direct interest in the universities themselves. Then we have the question of vehicles. Surely everyone who is going to be prevented from getting a lift in a car will want to know the reason why. "Did you approve of our being prevented from going in a motor-car?" "Have we to walk to the poll?" We all know the difficulty of getting people even to go round the corner to vote unless they can ride. People of all parties have experienced the same difficulty, and we want to express our views on the subject. The question of expenses also affects every locality, and everyone will want to know about it.
I quite agree that there is, from time to time, a tremendous amount of time wasted in Debate. In the last Parliament, when we were sitting on the other side, there was a good deal more time wasted, and Member after Member got up and repeated exactly what the fellow before him had said, in less good words than the previous speaker had used. There is that waste of time over unimportant Measures, but this cannot be ranked as an unimportant Measure. If it is, what is the hurry? If it is important, we need more time. You cannot have it both ways. The Prime Minister said that the public thinks there is a good deal of time wasted. It is obvious that the public should think that. They are thinking in terms of employment and economy. Those are the two things that they are not getting. That is why they are grumbling about the waste of time. They say, "You are bringing forward Measure after Measure, but none of them really go to the heart of our trouble, which is that we are overtaxed, and we have not a job? Knowing the Front Benches, our own as well as the Government Front Bench, not to mention the Liberal party, one may say that at least one Front Bencher will speak from each side. It is very seldom that, on a matter of importance, they speak for less than 45 minutes each.
There is an hour and a half gone straight off. In the last Parliament I tried to get speakers to promise not to speak for more than 10 minutes, exclusive of Front Benchers. I am sorry to say we never achieved that. [Interruption.] I never speak for more than 10
minutes. We may take it that on the average there will be 15 minute speeches. That will mean that 12 other people besides the Front Benchers will be able to speak on the Alternative Vote. The time for the University Vote is still shorter. I cannot see one of the university representatives speaking for less than half an hour, so there will be very few speeches on that topic. For all these reasons, I think the bringing in of the Guillotine is an iniquitous thing. This is an important subject which affects every voter, and every voter will feel that it is up to his Member in one way or another to make a protest. There may be a few who will do the opposite and give their blessing to the Bill which, as far as I can understand, is no more wanted by the Government than by the Opposition. It is brought in merely in the interests of a handful of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and I wish seriously to protest against the Motion.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I apologise for speaking, not having heard a great deal of the discussion, but I have had to be present at the funeral of the Trade Disputes Bill. I cannot see why a Guillotine Motion should be brought in on a Bill of this kind. There is no hurry whatever to put it through. One of the major Measures of this Session is now out of the way. We do not know of any other business going through. In fact, the Government have considerable difficulty in filling up Parliamentary time. When you bring forward a Bill which completely alters the whole of our system of elections, it is nothing short of a disgrace to put it through under the Guillotine. The Prime Minister quoted certain precedents, but every one was from a former Liberal Government. The Bill is brought forward simply under pressure from the Liberal party. The Prime Minister said he was going to give Conservative precedents as well, but he did not do so. It is all part of a rather discreditable arrangement to keep the present Government in office.
I wish particularly to draw attention to the amount of time allotted to the Alternative Vote. That is going to alter completely the whole of our election machinery. There has been a tremendous amount talked and written about it. Various people have suggested various
situations that might occur in the event of it being adopted. A great number of the supporters of the Government are against it, yet the Prime Minister suggests that only four hours shall be given to the complete discussion of the Alternative Vote, including the Front Bench speeches—a completely inadequate time. I hope that when we come to the Amendments the Prime Minister will realise that many of us take a great interest in the question of some alternative system of voting, and we do not consider that four hours is anything like sufficient time in which to alter the whole voting system of the country. We might say the same of the University Vote. Some university seats were created as long ago as 1600. I hope, if the Prime Minister cannot take off the Guillotine altogether, he will seriously consider giving very much more time to these two subjects. The whole Bill has one object only running through every Clause, to make it as difficult as possible for members of the Conservative party to get into the House. Every Clause is aimed against this party alone. One can see why the Government and hon. Members below the Gangway have joined together. I do not think it is fair to use the weight of a majority against one party in this way. The reason the Government have brought forward the Motion so quickly, before there has been any question of obstruction, is because they dare not have these Clauses fully discussed. That is the only conclusion that any sensible person can come to.
The Prime Minister said he had precedents from the last Government, and he quoted the number of times Guillotine Motions have been brought in by us. I do not think that there was more than one occasion on which the Guillotine Motion had not been brought

in after an all-night sitting or a very great number of hours of obvious obstruction by the Opposition. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) as Prime Minister explaining that, although we had spent 18 hours on one Bill, we had got only the first seven or eight words, and on an occasion like that, of course, it is absolutely necessary to allocate time. I do not believe that in a Bill like this, with all the different interests concerned, that the Prime Minister would have found that there would have been obstruction. I agree that on a question like the Alternative Vote you might have had considerable discussion, not only from this side, but from those who support it and from those who are opposed to it on his side. But it would have been a discussion which would have been useful. The Guillotine procedure was not devised to be used to stifle useful discussion, but in order to prevent anything in the nature of obstruction.

I do not believe that there is any demand whatever in the country for the Bill. It was not mentioned during the election campaign when the party opposite were returned to office. Therefore, it is all the more reprehensible on the part of the Government to stifle discussion by such a Motion, and I sincerely hope that even the Liberal party will disagree with the proposal and desire to have a full discussion of the Bill on the Floor of the House.

The PRIME MINISTER, rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 259: Noes, 203.

Division No. 176.]
AYES.
[6.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Calne, Derwent Hall-


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Benson, G.
Cameron, A. G.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Birkett, W. Norman
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Bowen, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.


Arnott, John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Chater, Daniel


Aske, Sir Robert
Broad, Francis Alfred
Clarke, J. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Ayles, Walter
Brooke, W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Brothers, M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Compton, Joseph


Barnes, Alfred John
Buchanan, G.
Cove, William G.


Bann, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Burgess, F. G.
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richards, R.


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ritson, J.


Day, Harry
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Romeril, H. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Rothschild, J. de


Dukes, C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rowson, Guy


Duncan, Charles
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Egan, W. H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sandham, E.


Elmley, Viscount
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Freeman, Peter
Longden, F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sexton, Sir James


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lowth, Thomas
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shield, George William


Gill, T. H.
McElwee, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gillett, George M.
McEntee, V. L.
Shillaker, J. F.


Glassey, A. E.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Shinwell, E.


Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Simmons, C. J.


Gray, Milner
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hair, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marcus, M.
Snell, Harry


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)
Marley, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marshall, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hardle, George D.
Matters, L. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Haycock, A. W.
Melville, Sir James
Sullivan, J.


Hayday, Arthur
Messer, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Middleton, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Henderson. W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S W.)


Herriotts, J.
Milner, Major J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hoffman, P. C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Tillett, Ben


Hollins, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Toole, Joseph


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Townend, A. E.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.
Vaughan, David


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muggeridge, H. T.
Viant, S. P.


Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Murnin, Hugh
Walkden, A. G.


Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.
Walker, J.


Johnston, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
West, F. R.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, Joseph


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Perry, S. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kelly, W. T.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kinley, J.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kirkwood, D.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Knight, Holford
Price, M. P.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Pybus, Percy John
Wise, E. F.


Lang, Gordon
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Lathan, G.
Raynes, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bird, Ernest Roy


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Boothby, R. J. G.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Beaumont, M. W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Berry, Sir George
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Boyce, Leslie


Atholl, Duchess of
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Bracken, B.


Atkinson, C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brass, Captain Sir William




Briscoe, Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan, John
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butler, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Purbrick, R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Campbell, E. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Remer, John R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm-.W.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chamberlain, Bt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Salmon, Major I.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms, Major-General J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Law, Sir Alfred 'Derby, High Peak)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Dairymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Thomson, Sir F.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tinne, J. A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Macquisten, F. A.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ferguson, Sir John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Connor, T. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Grace, John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Neill, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'the' in line 1, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 227.

Division No. 177.]
AYES.
[7.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Benson, G.
Calne, Derwent Hall-


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Birkett, W. Norman
Cameron, A. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cape, Thomas


Angell, Sir Norman
Bowen, J. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Arnott, John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Charleton, H. C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Broad, Francis Alfred
Chater, Daniel


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bromfield, William
Clarke, J. S.


Ayles, Walter
Brooke, W.
Cluse, W. S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brothers, M.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Barnes, Alfred John
Buchanan, G.
Compton, Joseph


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Burgess, F. G.
Cove, William G.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Richards, R.


Daggar, George
Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dallas, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Romeril, H. G.


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Rothschild, J. de


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rowson, Guy


Dukes, C.
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Duncan, Charles
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Ede, James Chuter
Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Logan, David Gilbert
Sandham, E.


Egan, W. H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Elmley, Viscount
Longden, F.
Sexton, Sir James


Freeman, Peter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lowth, Thomas
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Moseley)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gill, T. H.
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gillett, George M.
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Glassey, A. E.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Simmons, C. J.


Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gould, F.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gray, Mliner
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McShane, John James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. H. (Norwich)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snell, Harry


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Manninq, E. L.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.
Sorensen, R.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marcus, M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marley, J.
Stephen, Campbell


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marshall, Fred
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George
Strauss, G. R.


Hardle, George D.
Matters, L. W.
Sullivan, J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Haycock, A. W.
Melville, Sir James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hayday, Arthur
Messer, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Middleton, G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Millar, J. D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Herrlotts, J.
Mliner, Major J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick
Tillett, Ben


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hoffman, P. C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Toole, Joseph


Hollins, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Townend, A. E.


Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Vaughan, David


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walker, J.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Murnin, Hugh
Watkins, F. C.


Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oldfield, J. R.
West, F. R.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Westwood, Joseph


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Palin, John Henry.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kelly, W. T.
Perry, S. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kirkwood, D.
Pole, Major D. G.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Knight, Holford
Potts, John S.
Wise, E. F.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Price, M. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lang, Gordon
Pybus, Percy John



Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Quibell, D. J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lathan, G.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Raynes, W. R.



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atholl, Duchess of
Berry, Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Atkinson, C.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bird, Ernest Roy


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beaumont, M. W.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.




Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grace, John
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Boyce, Leslie
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bracken, B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Purbrick, R.


Buchan, John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Remer, John R.


Butler, R. A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Carver, Major W. H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Christie, J. A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms, Major-General J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cowan, D. M.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Hands'v'th)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Thomson, Sir F.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lymington, Viscount
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Train, J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan. Sir Kenyon


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Warrender, Sir Victor


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meller, R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Withers, Sir John James


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. G. (Cambridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)



Ganzoni, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Connor, T. J.
Sir George Penny and Major the


Gower, Sir Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Marquess of Titchfield.

Lord ERSKINE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "the Report stage, and Third Reading."
I move this Amendment because the House has already decided by the Vote just given that there shall be a Guillotine Resolution applied to the Bill. This Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of applying the Guillotine merely
to the Committee stage of the Measure, and would leave the Report stage and Third Reading free from its operation, although, of course, Mr. Speaker would still have his usual power of selecting Amendments. The reason I am prepared to advocate this particular Amendment to the House is because I feel that, on a Bill of such magnitude, there should
at least be some part of the Measure which should be allowed to come under the usual free and unfettered discussion of the House. We all know that, when the Guillotine is in operation, there are very often a number of Clauses, certainly a number of Sub-sections, which never get discussed at all. On the Committee stage, when a Clause is brought in, one often finds that the first, or, perhaps, the first two Amendments raise very important subjects, which are so important that they take a long time to be discussed in the House. It is often discovered while these Amendments are being discussed that the Bill has been badly drafted, or that it means something quite different from what the original draftsmen supposed. For these reasons, arguments arise between the Government side and the Opposition, perfectly proper arguments, arguments which should be put in this House and for which Debate is intended. On these grounds, we believe that there should be free and unfettered discussion on the Report stage.
The time given to the Report stage in the Motion in inadequate. There are other Amendments to re-allocate the time under the Guillotine. I would point out that under the Guillotine for the Report stage, it is proposed to allow only one day for Clauses 1 to 4. Those Clauses include the alternative vote, the abolition of university constituencies and the question of the complete abolition of the plural vote. It may be that a great many hon. Members opposite do not believe that two of those Clauses are important. Those hon. Members, perhaps, think that those Clauses might be cleared away in a very short time, but there are other hon. Members who take a completely different view. There are in this House many university Members. The hon. Lady who represents the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has already spoken on the Guillotine Resolution, and has stated that far too little time is allowed on the Committee stage and on other stages for the discussion of this very important subject.
If we had a free discussion on the Report stage, it might remove a great many of the objections which we have felt it our duty to bring forward against the Guillotine Resolution. There may be, and there probably will be, many subjects that we should desire to raise on the
Report stage, subjects which have not been discussed during the Committee stage and which the House ought to discuss at some period while the Measure is under review. Many matters may be blocked out. You never know when you are debating under the Guillotine what Clause will be adequately discussed and what Clause will be inadequately discussed. When we look at the usual procedure we find that when the Report stage of a big Measure is taken, it does not occupy a great deal of time, because most of the major Amendments which require discussion have been taken on the Committee stage, but there are certain questions on which we want to take a decisive vote of the House. It does not usually take very long for the Third Reading stage. Therefore, if the Government could see their way to relent and to despise discussion a little less, the Bill would be better discussed, and there would not be that great waste of time which the Prime Minister, apparently, thinks there would be. I think we can make a case for the Report stage and the Third Reading being free from the Guillotine. Therefore, I recommend the Amendment to the House, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would urge upon the Government that this is not a Bill where the Guillotine is desirable on all stages. This is, first and foremost, a Bill which is the concern of the House of Commons. It is a Bill to alter, among other things, the method of election of Members to this House. For that reason it is primarily the concern of every hon. Member, and it is to a much less degree a matter of concern to the other place. Roughly speaking, in this Bill the Prime Minister is bringing in five main and major propositions. The first is the alternative vote, the second is the abolition of the business premises vote, except in the City of London, the third is the abolition of the university vote, the fourth is the restriction of the use of motor cars at elections, and the fifth relates to election expenses.
Under the Guillotine it is very difficult to ensure, no matter how much skill is devoted to drafting the time table, that every single part of the Bill receives
adequate time for discussion. No one would be more ready to admit that than the Prime Minister. Therefore, I do feel that it is extremely desirable that we should have an opportunity for reviewing on Report stage those portions of the Bill which under the Guillotine in Committee have received very little attention. An Amendment often raises questions which are unsuspected, even by the hon. Member who moves it, and very often it takes much longer time than was anticipated. Under the Guillotine if that occurs, they must of necessity cut out a good deal of discussion of other and later parts of the Clause. That is one of the drawbacks of the system. This is a Bill which deals with five very widely separated questions, many of them of administrative complexity. The Prime Minister will admit that on the alternative vote the working out of details will be a matter of complexity. The Clause dealing with motor cars is one of great difficulty and complexity. Therefore, it is necessary and desirable that the House should have a longer time to discuss some of the details. If Amendments are accepted by the Government on any of these Clauses, it is necessary that we should have time for discussion of them on the Report stage.
It is unfair to tie the House at this stage to a time-table. Once we have passed this Resolution and the time-table is set up, it will be only possible to alter it by the Government coming to the House and asking for a new time-table. We are starting on a Bill which, it is common knowledge, different sections of the House view very differently. He would be a rash man who would prophesy what is the real view of the House on the various Clauses. We cannot foretell, I do not believe that the Government can foretell, the ultimate shape in which the Bill may emerge. For these reasons, I suggest that some latitude on the Report stage is highly desirable.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that, whatever accommodation may be possible later on, it is quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be, as the Mover and Seconder said, to remove the Report stage and the Third Reading from the operation of the Guillotine. The Guillotine has many drawbacks; I am
not at all blind to them. As I said before, this is not a matter about which I care very much. I made a suggestion to the Committee upstairs that, if it was generally accepted, the construction of the Guillotine should be subjected to some sort of safeguard, and I am willing to carry that out, provided it is to be an arrangement with all parties, and that everybody will be subjected to the arrangement. But we have not got that yet and we must take the Guillotine as it is; it is unavoidable. I am certain that if a little stretch were given, it could only be very small for the Committee stage.
There would be no difficulty either on the Committee stage or on the Report stage of having a perfectly adequate discussion on the five points which the Seconder of the Amendment has enumerated. That would be impossible if we had repetition, but by careful selection we could see how far we got on the Committee stage, and then we could concentrate the Debate on the Report stage on the subjects which had not been considered in Committee. I feel certain that no harm will be done to the freedom of the House in expressing its opinions upon these points. I do not know if I am right—I have had no time to look it up and to check my impression—but I think there never has been a Guillotine Motion moved to exempt the Report stage and Third Reading. There have been Guillotine Motions moved to protect the Report and Third Reading after the Bill has gone through the Committee stage. I should have liked to have started by giving something away, but the Amendment would mean, if it were carried, that the greater part of the time that was saved by the Guillotine would be lost in the unprotected stages of the Bill. Therefore, I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The quite unexpected and sudden intervention of the Prime Minister at the close of the discussion on the previous Amendment, prevented me from taking any part in the discussion and offering to the House my observations on the general question. Therefore, I must take what opportunity remains to oppose, not the whole Resolution, since the House has already decided that there shall be a Guillotine for the Committee stage, but
that part of the Resolution about which a decision is still open to the House, in the hope that, although those who share my views have been unable to prevent the adoption of the Guillotine Resolution, we may somewhat minimise its scope. I have wondered very much as I have sat here this afternoon whether many Members of the House realise how grave is the step which we are taking to-day. The Prime Minister has made a proposal which is revolutionary, and he has made a speech which is more revolutionary still.
Hitherto, when a Motion of this kind has been made it has been made reluctantly by the Leader of the House, and he has felt bound to justify it by the special circumstances attaching to the project to which he proposes to apply the Guillotine. Either there has been special urgency in the situation with which the Bill proposed to deal, or such a congestion of business in the House that it has been necessary to deal with particular expedition with the particular Bill. Or there has already developed an obvious intention on the part of the Opposition or some portion of the House to obstruct the Measure, instead of discussing it fairly on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman did not pretend to give, and did not give, a single one of these reasons for his Motion or for his resistance to the Amendment which has been moved. On the contrary, coming down as Leader of the House to curtail its rights in debate he opened his speech by saying that he is not going to apologise, for what he is doing is henceforth to be the rule on all Bills of any importance.
That is a prodigious revolution. It is much more than an ordinary Resolution justified on the expediency of the particular case. We know that such a Resolution once passsed becomes a precedent. The Guillotine was used in the first instance with extreme reluctance by the one party the Liberal party, which prides itself on being the champion of free speech—for itself, although it is not so generous in allowing it to others. They came down reluctantly and proposed a particular expedient on the ground or a particular emergency. The Prime Minister now comes down triumphantly and announces that henceforth this is to be our normal procedure; that Debate is
useless, discussion is worthless, that the less we have of it the better, that our participation in legislation is to be not co-operation in the framing of Bills but an "aye" or "nay" to the schemes which these fruitful brains will propose for our approval or disapproval. That is a policy, not merely a Resolution. It is a policy which affects the whole future of this House and it is useless for the Prime Minister to say, "Oh yes, after I have got my way, after I have passed my jerrymandering Bill by an unprecedented act of Closure, I will talk with you as to whether when I am out of office I cannot have a greater measure of freedom in discussing your Measures." He is coming too late with his concession, and he is singularly inconsistent.
The right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the present Government has been fertile in the production of commissions and committees on all manner of questions. They have two methods of treatment, but both have the same origin. If a question is embarrassing to the Government and they do not want to say either yes or no, they propose the setting up of a commission or committee. Then if you ask them for any expression of opinion they always say, "We must wait until the Commission or the Committee has reported." This is not the first time by many that the right hon. Gentleman has invited other parties to co-operate, but even when he has done that, and when they have given their assent and have appointed members to represent them, the Prime Minister, whilst using the existence of a commission or committee as a reason for not dealing with the question if he does not wish to do so, utterly disregards the fact that a commission or committee is inquiring into a particular proposal if he wishes to press the proposal. He appoints a Commission but pays no attention to their report. He uses them as an obstacle which he can present to any demand by his opponents, an expedient by which he can relieve himself of giving an answer when it is inconvenient and as of no account when he wishes to disregard them.
He has appointed a committee to consider our procedure. One would have thought that he would have held his hand in the meantime, that at least he would have been careful not to alter the
existing procedure or extend it beyond that which the strictest regard to precedent would justify. He wipes the committee away. He has made some suggestions; and he will be ready when he has got his own Bill to consider them. Do not let him delay too long or he may find that he has overstayed his leave. When he thinks he is going out of office he will be ready to consult with the Opposition as to whether they will tie their hands and bind themselves not to use the measures he has used himself. He makes a great mistake. If one thing is more certain than another it is that once the House has sanctioned a procedure of this kind it tends to grow and become more drastic, and when we find that there is no pretence of any exceptional circumstances, that the Prime Minister now proposes this Motion as the normal procedure to be applied to contentious Bills, it will be idle for him when he sits on this side to whine for mercy or consideration.
In more than one speech from all sides of the House there have been allusions to the lessened interest which the public outside take in our proceedings and the lessened regard they have for this House. I am afraid that that is true; and to one who like myself has spent nearly 40 years in the service of the House, who cares for it, who admires its great traditions and loves it, it is a matter of profound regret. Does the Prime Minister really think that he is doing anything to raise it again in public opinion? What is the cause of this reduced respect? I will admit that there has been in certain quarters a deliberate attempt to lessen the importance of the House of Commons and to prevent such reports as would really he interesting and informative of our proceedings reaching the great mass of the public. I regret it, I think it is deplorable and unpatriotic in those who have the responsibility, but the conclusion I draw is that it behoves us to be all the more careful not to play into their hands, not to do anything which will make the task of shutting off the House of Commons from the public more easy than it would be otherwise.
A great deal no doubt is due to the fact that our Debates themselves are less interesting that they used to be. There used to be a continual clash of
mind with mind, a series of speeches in which Member after Member, according to his faith, sought to meet and repel the arguments which had been put from the other side of the House. In the course of recent years that has been less and less true, and everyone knows that hon. Members are more apt to make a speech not directly related to the Debate but to their constituents outside, not answering the arguments which have been addressed to the House but passing over their heads to other matters. I think the Prime Minister exaggerates the loquacity of the House. There is no one who is a more able master of the art of saying nothing in many words than the Prime Minister himself, and I need go no further than his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill for an illustration of what I mean. There was no attempt at argument, not the slightest effort to answer the arguments adduced by his opponents, and as long as the right hon. Gentleman treats the House and the Opposition in that way he will not help to restore its dignity or make our Debates what they ought to be.
The right hon. Gentleman himself in publishing to all the world, and in trying to impress upon his followers, that debate is useless is striking a deadly blow at the House of Commons. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that debate is not useless. There is no more idle and vain charge made against this House of Commons than that speeches do not change votes; they do. I have known it occur again and again, and an even more frequent result of debate is that the Government under the force of debate., of reiterated and repeated argument, have found themselves unable any longer to sustain an unsustainable proposition and have withdrawn or modified it sooner than take it to a Division. If Ministers always yielded to reason our discussions would be short, but they very often resist for an hour or two, until the growing uneasiness among those who sit behind them penetrates their minds, not unlikely reinforced by the difficulties which the Whips are finding in the Lobbies. Under the pressure which can be produced by debate, sometimes only by prolonged debate, the course of Governments is constantly modified, and particularly the
character of individual provisions of Bills.
When you come down with the Guillotine you take from the hands of the private Member his most effective way of bringing pressure to bear upon a Government which is unreasonable in its attitude to the project under discussion. The Minister has only to sit tight; he need not argue, he need not speak, he sits tight and obstinate with his eye on the clock, and he says that at 7.30 or 11.30, as the case may be, it will be all the same.

Mr. SANDHAM: It is a great game.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it is not. This is the worst form of Closure that the wit of Parliamentary man has yet devised.

Mr. J. JONES: Who devised it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Liberal party.

Mr. JONES: What about 1886?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Guillotine was unknown in those days.

Mr. JONES: The Coercion Act was not.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will read a little Parliamentary history. This is the worst and clumsiest form of Parliamentary Closure. I do not think the Prime Minister would dispute that for a moment. I think he has himself said so, more than once. But the form of procedure which by his Resolution he seeks to apply to this Bill, he would apply not only to all the stages of this Bill, but to all the stages of every Bill that raises any contentious points. That is a prodigious revolution in the procedure of the House, and if the House accepts the proposal it will mark a new decline in the discussions of this House and in the opportunities which this House has, first, to influence a stubborn Government, and in the second place to be what it ought to be, not merely representative of the people, but a great political and educative influence upon the public mind.
My conclusion is that of all forms of general Closure this is the worst. Of all forms of general Closure, the Kangaroo, that is to say, the selection by the Chair of the Amendments to be put, is the best. I do not like it, for, the Chair not being omniscient, mistakes inevitably will occur,
but it is by far the best method of general Closure, by far the fairest and by far the best that has yet been devised for the efficiency of this House. If the Government needed a form of general Closure at all this Bill was particularly suited to the Kangaroo, as it is called, and particularly unsuited to the Guillotine. This is a Bill of great principles, not of a mass of detail, and it ought to be discussed in the traditions of this House. We ought not in four hours to settle whether we shall introduce into our electoral system a proposal which has never been before this House, except to be condemned, as it has been frequently. It is a disfranchising Bill; it enfranchises no one; it disfranchises many. This House has always been very tender to all whose interests it was forced to destroy or limit. At least before the Government disfranchise anyone they might give free and full opportunity for the discussion of their proposition.
I say, therefore, that you are applying the worst form of general Closure to a Bill which is particularly unsuited to it, and you are doing that avowedly, not merely as an expedient to pass this Bill, but are doing it when it is not necessitated by any urgency in this Bill, not necessitated by any pressure in the Parliamentary situation, for we have plenty of time in front of us—you are doing it in that way and you are passing a Motion which will make it certain that before long this will be the normal procedure of the House, and you are doing to-day that which you complained of as having been done by your predecessors, that is, placing the House more and more in the hands of Ministers, and in advance tying the hands and restricting the powers of yourselves and your successors. Members on the back benches are very ready to taunt the two Front Benches, sometimes not without reason. At least you have fair warning from one Front Bench of what you are doing, and if you now choose to do it you do it with your eyes open and you have to take the consequences.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot pretend to have the historical knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman. He has been here so long that he has forgotten even some of the incidents in which he took part. I remember that nearly 40 years ago Bills were going through the House and this kind of Guillotine did not operate.
It was a different kind of Guillotine then. As soon as a Member on this side opposed the Government's policy the Closure was moved and carried. Automatically the Member lost his right even to address the House. As soon as he got on his feet the Motion was put, and the Member was ordered out of the House. I was here one night when 17 policemen were brought in to carry one Member out, and that was under the auspices of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman now reflecting on the conduct of one of your predecessors in the Chair, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. JONES: No, Sir. That was worse than the Guillotine; that was the gallows.

Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member is saying is quite out of order in this Debate.

Mr. JONES: I apologise. I was merely reciting the facts of history because the right hon. Gentleman said that I did not know much about the history of this House. If I was examined in history side by side with him I would pass with honours. This Bill is providing us with the opportunity of getting a fair decision on public matters. It is not perfect. Have human beings ever yet discovered methods whereby it is possible to ascertain exactly the proportions of public opinion? Proportional representation has been argued and the alternative vote has been argued. Can any scheme of voting yet devised decide what is the exact opinion of the public? We support this Bill, for one reason, because of the fancy franchises that exist. At present universities are entitled to special representation. Why? We have a number of university Members in this House. Have they proved themselves superior to me? I come from the university of poverty; they come from the University of Oxford. They have taken some degrees; I have taken all mine. I claim that I have as much common sense as they have when it comes to a decision in this House on any question of public importance, although they call themselves M.As. and B.As. They claim the right to special representation. I deny that right. If they are better than we are, let them stand the gamut of the ordinary electors
at an election. They claim the right to two votes, one because they are graduates of a university and another because they happen to reside in a certain constituency.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment before the House merely deals with the Report and Third Reading stages of the Bill under the Guillotine. This is not the occasion for discussing the Bill itself.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry to have had to make that reference. There is no right for any party in this House to claim to be the special protectors of public interests. The party opposite when in power have always used the Guillotine. They have used special machinery to prevent other people from opposing them. They have adopted a three-shift system. Whenever they wanted to do anything they have done it, and now they object to retaliation. I am not afraid of the Guillotine in the future, even if the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) becomes Prime Minister. When he reaches that position I shall accept the Guillotine from him, because I shall always know that he will use it as a gentleman.

Captain GUNSTON: I should like to say how much I appreciated the strong stand for Members' rights made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and how equally shocked we were by the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon. I am old enough to remember the days of the Union of Democratic Control, when we were told that we must have open diplomacy and full discussion. Since then the Prime Minister has moved far. We have the most secret diplomacy we have ever known, and now discussion is to be curtailed as much as possible. I will deal with one point in the Prime Minister's speech—his statement that it might be easy to arrange to discuss on Report stage matters which had not been discussed on the Committee stage. What happens on the Committee stage? Very often, owing to the pressure of hon. Members, the Minister has to give way. He gets up and says that he will consider the matter on the Report stage. The fact that he considers it on Report means that we may have a discussion on the Report stage, but with the best will in the world it may be very difficult to
discuss then matters which were not discussed in Committee, owing to the operation of the Guillotine.
8.0 p.m.
Any hon. Member who reads the public Press can hardly pass a day without reading some comment of one of His Majesty's Judges that Bills have been passed through this House after scanty discussion, with the result that the words of the Act did not interpret the wish of the House. As the Prime Minister knows, in regard to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, because of the wording of a certain Clause an Amendment will have to be introduced. Under the Guillotine, discussion must be more and more inadequate. We know that points of importance that arise in discussion very often come from private Members. Let me put this to the Prime Minister: Whatever the Bill under discussion there are experts on every subject under the sun in this House, and they give their views. They may not always be great speakers or great Parliamentarians, but their knowledge of the subject is very useful to the Minister of the day. We are all interested in this Bill. It concerns us all. We know how people vote, and we know all about motor cars. We all think we are the greatest experts in the way of winning an election. This is the sort of thing on which we should have liked unfettered discussion. If the Government do not give us this concession in regard to the Report stage they must inevitably curtail further the right of private Members, because, even if the Prime Minister's suggestion could be carried out, what would happen? The Minister would speak and the Front Benches would speak on matters which have not already been discussed, and the private Members must more and more be crowded out. This is a Bill, more than any other, on which the views of private Members ought to be heard, because it is a Bill which touches us one and all. In conclusion, I would like to protest against the Prime Minister moving the Guillotine on this Bill which concerns the rights of this House, and in moving the Closure this evening and thus preventing us from discussing this Motion, which is to prevent Members from getting their rights.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Amendment, although I understand he has indicated his willingness to consider some further concessions in regard to the time for the Committee stage. But surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot now maintain the argument which he called to his aid at 4 o'clock. The business of the House is not likely to be congested in future, because we now know that we shall not have to consider the Trade Disputes Bill, and that is a strong reinforcement of the argument which we brought forward earlier in the afternoon in trying to resist the Prime Minister's Motion in general. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has himself put forward the strongest argument in favour of this Amendment. He said: "I am satisfied that between the Committee stage and Report stage we shall be able to arrange things so as to make sure that every important point, every question of principle, is discussed." He also said that they would see how they got on in the Committee stage and make arrangements on the Report stage to ensure that these discussions took place. But that is exactly what we cannot do unless this Amendment is accepted. Surely, that is one of the strongest arguments for its acceptance. I could understand the right hon. Gentleman saying: "Let us have the Guillotine for the Committee stage and see how we get on, and, if it turns out that my advisers have not guessed right and some important point is shut out on Committee, we shall so provide in our time-table that on Report the Opposition shall have a reasonable opportunity of discussing that point." That I could have understood, but that is not what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, unless the House takes the extreme course of rescinding this Motion. There is a difference between free-will and predestination, and the right hon. Gentleman wants predestination for the Report stage, and I want free-will.
This is a Bill on which you do want to retain a free hand for the Report stage, because upon it various sections in the House are going to raise important points of principle on which their attitude is extremely doubtful. You have questions like the alternative vote and university representation, and it is admitted
that, on those points, there are differences of opinion in all parts of the House. The proposal put forward in the Bill is not commonly shared by all Members on the other side. Therefore, it may happen that in the course of the Committee discussions the decision may be taken for example, to exclude the university vote, and, if such a decision is taken, your time-table for the Report stage must be absolutely stultified, and, unless you want it to be stultified, you would have to move to rescind this Resolution and move a new one in its place. Would it not be much better to complete the Committee stage and get as much time from the Prime Minister as he can give us under that head, and, when we have done that, to see what has been discussed and then consider the time-table for the Report stage? That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not accept it.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: This Amendment, if accepted, would have given the Prime Minister some opportunity of lessening the case which can be made against him for treating with such lack of regard the principles and the traditions upon which this House have always acted. Surely, he can scarcely have been feeling very happy when he was listening to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I am sorry the Prime Minister has had to leave the Chamber, because he is, personally, as I know well, interested in the traditions of this House, and I do not think he would have taken quite the course of action which has been taken to-night in regard to this Motion if he had realised what was likely to be the effect of it or the case which could be made out against him, as one of the leading Members of the House. What is the position when we come to the Report and the Third Reading stages of a Bill of this kind which is not a very long one? The Government then have at their disposal, through the working of the Chair, the power of selecting Amendments and the Closure. It would be literally impossible for any Opposition, however expert they might be, to waste any very great amount of time in obstruction on the Report stage of a Bill of this brevity.
The Prime Minister referred to the possibility of some concession being made
later on in the terms of this Motion, but he said at the time, and I took particular notice of this, that the concession he would be able to make would be very slight. I am not going back upon the arguments which there are against the application of a Guillotine Motion at all to a Bill of this kind, but I think I am at liberty to call attention to this particular fact, that the Prime Minister, in refusing this Amendment, is practically refusing to depart at all from the use to the fullest extent possible of the Guillotine on a Bill of a kind on which I believe it has never been used before. At any rate, it had never been so used until there had been considerable signs of obstruction shown. The right hon. Gentleman is doing that and refusing now an Amendment which will at least give him the opportunity of being able to defend himself to some extent against what would be said against him, here and throughout the country, in regard to his action in using this weapon upon this Bill.
If we are to have time cut so short on the Report stage and if there is so short an allowance of time for the Committee stage, such a procedure will only support those accusations which have been made against the whole of the present Government, and I may say against the Socialist party generally, and with a great deal of substance—I think even it is admitted by some of the back benchers of the Socialist party—that their whole theory of office is a kind of government by decree of the majority in existence in the House for the time being. I see the Chief Whip on the Front Bench opposite, and this is a point which will interest him. If you are to stifle discussion to this extent under the present party system, what will happen in this House at present? No one can deny that it will amount to an attempt simply to register the decisions of the Government for the time being. Whatever views the Chief Whip may have on the subject I am sure the Prime Minister would never support the theory that legislation was to be practically legislation by decree of the Government in power or in office for the time being.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I have never suggested that.

Sir D. HERBERT: Do not let me be thought to be accusing the right hon. Gentleman of that. I am not doing so. I am saying that, whatever views he may have, and they may differ from the views of the Prime Minister, I feel sure that the Prime Minister himself would repudiate very vehemently any suggestion that he was in favour of establishing a system such as that which I have described as practically legislating by Government decree. But what would happen in a case of this kind where you have the time of Members in opposition or of private Members on the Government side in discussing a Measure of this sort cut short? You have a Measure in which there are at least five great questions of principle and on every one of which it would be legitimate to spend a whole evening in a general Debate. We are to be given much less than that. We are only to have half-a-day on any particular Clause, half the time that we ought to have to discuss the main principle of the Clause, and no time whatever to discuss details of the Clause and the points which arise when you have once dealt with the question of principle. Then having been treated in that way on the Committee stage, we are to go through proportionately the same procedure on the Report stage as well.
In spite of the Prime Minister's reply, I do suggest seriously that the Government would be well advised to reconsider this particular Amendment, and see if they cannot give way on it for the present. If they would be willing to withdraw this part of the Motion it would still be open to them to move the Guillotine again for the Report stage later on if they found it necessary, but I suggest very seriously that, in the case of a Bill of this character and brevity, the selection of Amendments, and the Closure are amply sufficient to see that the Report stage is got through in a reasonable time.

Captain CAZALET: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) for the strong appeal which he has made on behalf of the back benchers. It is obvious what will happen during the Committee stage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has pointed out that as each Clause comes up, its main principle wilt have to be discussed. A Front Bench Member will speak on behalf of each party, and then, no doubt, there will be an expert in each party who will have a right to be heard and who will, properly, be called upon to put various other points to the Committee. The result will be that the Guillotine will fall before back benchers can submit those points which are perhaps comparatively small but which directly affect themselves or their constituencies. That is quite apart from the fact that it will be impossible to discuss any details, because the main principle in each Clause will probably occupy all the available time. In other circumstances, we might look forward to having a chance on the Report stage, but in this case we are told that if it is found that some relatively important points have not been discussed during the Committee stage, certain facilities will be given for their discussion on the Report stage. Thus exactly the same procedure will be followed on the Report stage, and, again, the private Member will be deprived of the opportunity of presenting his point of view. Now that the Government have obtained the Guillotine for the Committee stage, they might at least wait to see if any considerable number of new points are left undiscussed during the Committee stage, before committing themselves and the House to applying the Guillotine to the Report stage and Third Reading.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 247 Noes, 165.

Division No. 178.]
AYES.
[8.17 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ayles, Walter
Bowen, J. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Barnes, Alfred John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Alpass, J. H.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brooke, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brothers, M.


Angell, Sir Norman
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Arnott, John
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Birkett, W. Norman
Burgess, F. G.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Potts, John S.


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Price, M. P.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Pybus, Percy John


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Chater, Daniel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Clarke, J. S.
Kinley, J.
Raynes, W. R.


Cluse, W. S.
Knight, Holford
Richards, R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lang, Gordon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Compton, Joseph
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Cove, William G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cowan, D. M.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rowson, Guy


Daggar, George
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dallas, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leach, W.
Sandham, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sawyer, G. F.


Day, Harry
Lees, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, Sir James


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncan, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Sherwood, G. H.


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Shield, George William


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Egan, W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Elmley, Viscount
Lunn, William
Shinwell, E.


Freeman, Peter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simmons, C. J.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Glassey, A. E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sorensen, R.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Granville, E.
Mansfield. W
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gray, Milner
March, S.
Sullivan, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.
Sutton, J. E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Griffiths, T. (Manmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Graves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Melville, Sir James
Tillett, Ben


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Middleton, G.
Toole, Joseph


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Millar, J. D.
Townend, A. E.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, David


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J
Viant, S. P.


Hardle, George D.
Montague, Frederick
Walkden, A. G.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, J.


Haycock, A. W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Watkins, F. C.


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison. Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayes, John Henry
Mort, D. L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh
West, F. R.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hoffman, P. C.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hopkin, Daniel
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Isaacs, George
Paling, Wilfrid
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Johnston, Thomas
Palmer, E. T.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Perry, S. F.



Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Thurtle


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pole, Major D. G.



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Astor, Viscountess
Betterton, Sir Henry B.


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Atkinson, C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bird, Ernest Roy


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft




Bracken, B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bran, Captain Sir William
Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Sir H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grace, John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan, John
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil


Campbell, E. T.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rathbone, Eleanor


Carver, Major W. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Remer, John R.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christle, J. A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Train, J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Eden, Captain Anthony
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.M.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wayland, Sir William A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ferguson, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Withers, Sir John James


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison. W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gault, Lieut-Col. A. Hamilton
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain




Sir George Bowyer.

Sir H. O'NEILL: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."
I shall later move a consequential Amendment apportioning the time differently, assuming that eight days are given to the Committee stage. During some of the discussion to-day there has been a measure of agreement that in certain events a Guillotine Motion becomes practically a necessity, but, when we come to the question as to whether the allocation of time under the Guillotine Motion is fair or unfair, we come down to the real merits of the case. In a Bill of this importance and intricacy, five days is entirely inadequate for the Committee stage, and I earnestly suggest to the Prime Minister that some concession should be given. It is very usual in the discussions of Guillotine Motions for a concession to be granted,
and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to grant scene more time for the Committee stage.
As has been mentioned in the discussion on one of the previous Amendments, five days are not really being given to the Committee stage. On an examination of the Government's proposal, it will be found that only four days plus 1½ hours are actually being given. That is arrived at in this way. On each of the days the Debate is to come to an end at 10.30 instead of 11 o'clock. That means the loss of half-an-hour each day. As there are four days to which 10.30 applies, that means a loss of two hours. In addition, on the fifth day, so-called, the Debate is to conclude at 7.30. If these hours are worked out, it will be found that the actual time to be given to the Committee stage of this important Bill is four days and 1½ hours of Parliamentary time. No reasonable Member
would think that that was anything like sufficient time for an adequate and proper discussion of the Measure. In my subsequent Amendment it is proposed to extend the time each day by one hour, and to make 11.30 the time for the fall of the Guillotine instead of 10.30. In addition, it is proposed that the Guillotine should fall only once a day at 11.30 instead of, as the Government propose, at 7.30 and 10.30.
To Clause 1, which deals with the Alternative Vote, I propose that the whole of one Parliamentary day should be given, instead of only 4½ hours, as is proposed by the Government. The Alternative Vote, although it has been discussed on previous occasions in this House, sets up a completely new system in our constitutional history, and to give only 4½ hours for a detailed discussion of that vitally important change seems to be rather drastic. I think that even the Prime Minister will agree that a larger amount of time than 4½ hours is necessary properly to discuss so great a change. On the paper of Amendments to this Bill, there are a large number dealing with the Alternative Vote, and many of them deserve a close and careful attention and consideration by the House. I also propose that Clause 2 should be given a full day instead of only half-a-day. This Clause proposes to abolish double-Member constituencies, and incidentally, it contains a provision dealing with the City of London. Both these questions are deserving of full and sufficient discussion. There are hon. Members opposite who do not desire that the City of London should have special treatment, and no doubt they will be moving Amendments to carry out their suggestions.
Then there is the whole question of the 12 constituencies which return two Members each. Double-Member constituency representation is very old in the history of this Parliament; it has continued through many generations. I myself happen to be one of the Members of a double-Member constituency and I know that there are some disadvantages attached to such representation, but, on the other hand the Members representing these old boroughs, most of them in the North, like Stockport, Bolton, Blackburn and Dundee, surely have some right to be heard.
Quite apart from whether double-Member representation is a good or bad thing, the point of view of the individual who represents a particular borough where a change is to be introduced is surely deserving of careful consideration. Sometimes questions of local pride arise.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): The right hon. Gentleman is now going into the merits of the Bill.

Sir H. O'NEILL: I was trying to show that this was an important question and deserved more time for consideration, and I do not think I was going very much beyond what was necessary to point that out. However, Sir, if you think I was, I will curtail what I was going to say, though as a matter of fact I think I have already said enough to show that there is a good case for extending the time for discussion. My Amendment proposes that one whole day should be given for the discussion of Clause 3 instead of the three hours allotted by the Government. It is an important Clause dealing with the business premises qualification, and that, of course, entails consideration of plural voting. When one realises the great importance of plural voting and the strong views which are held about it on different sides of the House it is not unreasonable to ask that one whole day of Parliamentary time should be given to it. With regard to Clauses 4 and 5, my Amendment proposes to give them a whole day of Parliamentary time instead of three and a-half hours. Clause 4, which deals with university representation, is, I was going to say, almost the most important Clause in the Bill. At any rate, it has given rise probably to more interest in the constituencies than any other.

Mr. MILLS: And more typewritten postcards.

Sir H. O'NEILL: It is certainly the one proposal in respect of which hon. Members have received more correspondence than any other.

Mr. MILLS: Most of it printed.

Sir H. O'NEILL: Under the Government's time-table the question of university representation is only to get 3½ hours, and that allotment of time is to include also Clause 5, though I admit this deals with rather a minor point, a provision for postponing polls in islands, probably
not a matter which raises any controversy. Clause 4, however, really does require more than a half-day's discussion. I suppose the principal discussion will take place on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, because then the whole merits of university representation can be dealt with, but there is also a point of particular interest to myself and others who come from my part of the United Kingdom, and that is, how far these proposals regarding university representation affect the settlement which was arrived at under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. That is a constitutional point of some importance and deserves sufficient time for its consideration. If that point is to be adequately discussed, and also the whole general question of university representation, it is hardly reasonable to allow only 3½ hours.
My Amendment suggests that a whole day should be given to Clause 6 instead of the three hours proposed by the Government. This Clause, again, is one of considerable interest and not inconsiderable intricacy. It raises the question of the provision of vehicles to take electors to the poll. I do not propose to go into the merits of the Clause, except by way of illustration, but those who have read it feel that there is a good deal to be said about it, to put the matter no higher. It is rather a novel, and in some ways an extraordinary Clause. There are such difficult questions as what is a
person other than the owner of the vehicle or a member of his family resident with him,
who may go to the poll in a motor car if driven by the owner. That is a point upon which hon. Members on both sides of the House will probably have a great deal to say.
There is also a very novel and remarkable provision under which any person who is the owner of a vehicle, and wishes to use it may do so if he places it at the disposal of the Returning Officer for the use of electors in any part of the constituency. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it is a very uncommon thing, and I suggest that it is a point in this Bill which requires very careful consideration not with a view to an empty discussion, but with a view, if possible, to making a more workable provision and an improvement. I cannot
help feeling that if changes of this kind are to come about one would like to feel that such changes as are proposed are really practicable and possible. Many of us think that a number of the proposals in this Measure are neither practical nor possible.
With regard to Clauses 7 to 9, I propose that they should be given a whole day instead of the three hours proposed by the Government time-table. Those Clauses deal with the question of election expenses and plural voting. It may be that with regard to that particular part of my proposal Clauses 7 to 9 are as important as some of the other Clauses. I admit that they are not, but nevertheless I think adequate time should be given for the discussion of those Clauses. My Amendment proposes that two whole Parliamentary days should be given for the discussion of the new Clauses and Schedules, instead of one day which is the Government proposal. I propose two days for the discussion of the new Clauses and the Schedules largely because, in the Schedules, the whole question as to how the alternative vote is to work has to be considered under the Schedule, in which a certain method of exercising the alternative vote is proposed. There are many other ways of exercising the alternative vote system, and I think hon. Members should be given an opportunity of moving Amendments to that Schedule and putting test questions as to the way in which they think the alternative vote should be worked.
There are on the Paper several responsible and reasonable Amendments dealing with this question. For instance, under the proposals of the Government I see that the electors are to be given the choice of putting first preference and second preference votes. [Interruption.] I am not going into the merits of this question except to show that this matter does require adequate discussion, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to deal with this point for a few moments. My point is that there is another system by which you give first, second and third preference votes, and that is a scheme which deserves more time for its consideration than the Government have given for the discussion of this very important Schedule, which is the only part of the Bill where hon.
Members can make their suggestions for improving the system under which the alternative vote is to operate.
I think I have said enough—I know the Prime Minister is really not unreasonable on these matters—to cause him to realise that the gravamen of the opposition to this Motion to-day is not so much because the Prime Minister has proposed it, as because we think it has been proposed at a time in the discussions of the Bill when it was unnecessary and because it is too drastic in regard to the time which is allowed. I hope that the Prime Minister, in replying to my Amendment, will realise that although there may be something to be said for the use of the Guillotine, nevertheless it should be only used with a proper regard for the dignity and efficiency of Parliament, and if the time allotted is in all the circumstances ample, reasonable, and fair.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should reply to the Amendment at this point. I will first deal with the minor points which have been raised in regard to the time for bringing the proceedings to a conclusion, which appear in the third column. The time of 10.30 and 7.30 has always been there, and the reason for that is that it enables Divisions to be taken at a reasonable time. The difference between 10.30 and 11.30 is not so very serious when the time-table is properly arranged. The points which the hon. Member has put about the deduction of Parliamentary time by the time-table are all objections that have been taken again and again, and I do not think that they are really of very much substance when we are settling a scheme for the discussion of a Bill like the one we are considering.
The right hon. Gentleman did, however, while referring to his second Amendment, make one or two objections which I admit straightaway. When our scheme was being drafted, I asked that eyes and ears should be kept open for objections and criticisms and proposals, so that we might do our best, within the limits imposed upon us, to meet serious and substantial objections to the distribution of the time, and I am willing to do that. I do not think that eight days are required. It is very curious that the three subjects upon
which the right hon. Gentleman laid special stress, and which he objected to as being dealt with in three hours, are three subjects that I am willing to consider. The first is the Alternative Vote. In ordinary circumstances, I think it will not be half a day only that will be available for that discussion. Then, with reference to the university vote, Clause 4—the group is Clauses 4 and 5—I am willing to give an extra half-day. I think that that is fair. With reference to Clause 6, as a matter of fact a day is given to that Clause—[Interruption.] I will read it all out; it is a little complicated. With reference to the Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules, I think it is possible to give a day for them. The Amendments therefore would be, that "Six" be substituted for "Five" in line 5—that is to say, there would be six allotted days instead of five—and that in line 18, which relates to Clause 3, "10.30" would be left out, while in line 19 we should propose to leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 25, and insert:




P.M.


Third
Clause 3
7.30



Clauses 4 and 5
—


Fourth
Clauses 4 and 5
7.30



Clause 6
—


Fifth
Clause 6
7.30



Clauses 7 to 9
10.30


Sixth
Schedules, new Clauses, etc.
10.30


The effect of this will be to give to the universities and to the Schedules an extra half-day each. I hope that this alteration, if it is not accepted gratefully, will nevertheless ease the situation, and make the Guillotine more acceptable than it would have been as drafted originally by the Government. We shall move accordingly the insertion of six allotted days and the consequential Amendments which I have indicated.

9.0 p.m.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I rise at once to say that on this side of the House we are fully conscious that the Prime Minister has at any rate gone some way towards meeting the very strong case that has been made from this side of the House. I still think that the full Amendment of my right hon. Friend will have met the case a great deal better, but I should be churlish if. I denied that the Prime Minister has made a definite concession. I imagine that what he
wishes to do is, as far as he can, to meet our desire that the principal questions should start at a suitable time and should have a reasonable period of discussion. That being so, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there are one or two small alterations in his proposal which we should prefer, and which I should have thought he might equally well have been able to accept. I have here an alternative schedule based upon the allocation of six days to to the Committee stage, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the small alterations which I now suggest, because they would certainly meet the wishes of those on this side better than the proposal which he has made. For instance, we on this side of the House would like the first day to be allotted to the Alternative Vote, that is to say, to Clause 1, and the second day to Clauses 2 and 3.

The PRIME MINISTER: To Clauses 2 and 3 together, ending at 10.30?

Mr. ALBERY: Might I ask the Prime Minister if he would make a little more clear exactly what his concession is?

Sir S. HOARE: It is six days instead of five.

Mr. ALBERY: We understand that, but we do not understand quite how they are to be allotted.

Sir S. HOARE: We propose that the second day should be allotted to Clauses 2 and 3, the third day to Clauses 4 and 5, the fourth day to Clause 6, the fifth day to Clauses 7, 8, and 9, and the sixth day to the Schedules, new Clauses, and new Schedules. I should imagine that this alteration would make very little difference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I think it would ensure a better Debate than would the suggestion that he has made.
Having said that, might I also add this further point? We on this side of the House attach a great deal of importance to the Amendment which stands later on the Paper in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and two other hon. Members—In line 49, at the end, to insert the words:
Upon any allotted day no Standing Committee, Private Bill Committee, or other Committee of the House shall sit or
remain in session after the conclusion of Questions, or if the allotted day be a Friday, after 11.5 a.m., and the chairman of such Committee shall at that time declare the Committee to be adjourned without Question put.
The object of this Amendment is that the Closure Resolutions should not run while a Standing Committee is sitting upstairs, and I would take this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister whether he could not meet us on that point also. We attach great importance to this Amendment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to meet us on that point as well. If he could agree to the small alterations I have proposed, and also upon the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), it might greatly facilitate our proceedings.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly willing to leave it in this way: If the Government, to use language which has been very familiar in the naval negotiations, gives a globular tonnage of six full days, I am quite willing that the Opposition should fix the details. We really want as honest a discussion as we can possibly make it. I hope it will meet the convenience of the other section as well. There must be accommodation all round. With reference to the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) I am not sure that I could definitely accept it. The second part of it would be deleted, because it contemplates the possibility of Friday being an allotted day, but the first part is that no Standing Committee. Private Bill Committee, or other Committee of the House shall sit after the conclusions of Questions. I will do my best that that shall be done. At present, I know no reason why it should not be done, but I am warned that circumstances might arise when it would be exceedingly inconvenient if it was done. If it is going to add to the harmony, I shall be only too glad to do everything I can to meet the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir S. HOARE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I understand that, although he cannot formally accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, he is anxious to meet our views and, so far as it is reasonably possible. Standing Committees will not be sitting when discussions on the Bill are taking
place. That being so, I accept what the Prime Minister has said, and I should think the best course would be to hand the Home Secretary our suggested alterations in the time-table.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I should like to know where we are. Is the right hon. Baronet going to withdraw his Amendment?

Sir H. O'NEILL: I think the proper course will be for you, Sir, to put the Question that the word "five" stand part, and that will be negatived. Then it will be for someone else to move the insertion of whatever Schedule is agreed upon.

Mr. LEIF JONES: In view of the arrangement that the Prime Minister is proposing, that no Standing Committee is to sit during the sittings of the House if the Representation of the People Bill is being considered, Standing Committee B is not sitting in the afternoons this week, but it has been practically decided that it will sit in the afternoon next week. It is only fair that the House should be in possession of that fact before the Prime Minister decides.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the right hon. Baronet does not withdraw his Amendment, I shall have to put it.

Sir H. O'NEILL: I have moved to leave out the word "five" and to insert the word "eight." The Question that you have to put is that the word "five" stand part.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that is accepted—

Sir H. O'NEILL: I suggest that it should be negatived, and then it will be moved to insert words comprising the agreed Schedule.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot have two negatives. We shall have to negative "eight" as well.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Surely it is simpler than that. The Question that "five" stand part is to be negatived by agreement. Then I gather the Prime Minister will move to insert the word "six."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: An Amendment has been moved and, if the word "five" is negatived, we shall have to
get rid of the Amendment. It would be better to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord E. PERCY: I am sure there is no objection on this side to the withdrawal of the Amendment on the understanding that the Prime Minister will move. Perhaps I may follow up the point that has been made by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), which puts the House in a little difficulty. We have an undertaking from the Prime Minister on which we rely. I suppose he has no control over what the Committee upstairs may decide, and, therefore, it would seem to be necessary that we should discuss the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham when we come to it.

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, I had asked that information should be given to me as to how far I could give any pledge in the matter, and I am told that I cannot very well give a pledge because the Committee will very much resent any instructions sent to it. All I say is that I will do my best, but I cannot promise that it will be carried out every day.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I should like to thank the Prime Minister for the consideration that he has given to the University Members. We are very grateful to him.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Prime Minister has suggested that the party below the Gangway might have something to say with regard to the new arrangement. Speaking on behalf of the party, we accept the six days.

Sir H. O'NEILL: I am not quite clear as to how the position is going to be met.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

Sir H. O'NEILL: I am prepared to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In line 5, leave out the word "Five," and insert instead thereof the word "Six."

Leave out lines 15 to 25, inclusive, and insert:




P.M.


First
Instructions and Clause 1
10.30


Second
Clauses 2 and 3
10.30


Third
Clauses 4 and 5
10.30


Fourth
Clause 6
10.30


Fifth
Clauses 7 to 9
10.30


Sixth
New Clauses, Schedules, new Scheduler, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion
10.30




[Mr. Clynes.]

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 42, after the first word "day," to insert the words "other than a Friday."
Now that we have got a new and an amended time-table, as far as the Committee stage is concerned, I hope that it will not be taken at all on a Friday. I feel sure that the Government will accept the Amendment, as Friday is clearly a shorter day and the whole time-table would be upset if the Bill were taken on such a day. Friday, I understand, is still to be kept for private Members' business, and I hope that it will not be taken from them for some time to come.

Lord ERSKINE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I understood from the remarks of the Prime Minister that he was prepared to accept it.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): In accordance with the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago, the Government are quite willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, to leave out lines 47 to 49.
This Amendment is consequential upon the decision which the House has already taken. These lines provide for what may happen on a Friday, and the House has already agreed not to take the Bill on a Friday.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in line 49, at the end, to insert the words:
Upon any allotted day no Standing Committee, Private Bill Committee, or
other Committee of the House shall sit or remain in session after the conclusion of Questions, or, if the allotted day be a Friday, after 11.5 a.m., and the chairman of such Committee shall at that time declare the Committee to be adjourned without Question put.
I move the Amendment for the purpose of elucidating a little further the undertaking which the Prime Minister has given. I understand the position that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Member of the Front Bench controls the procedure of Standing Committees, but we want to be assured that normally no Standing Committee will be sitting while this Bill is under discussion in the House. I suggest to the Home Secretary that the way to carry out the undertaking of the Prime Minister is not to put he Bill down for discussion when the Government know that a Standing Committee is going to sit. I imagine that the Home Secretary will be able to give me that undertaking. It may be that in remote contingencies it may be necessary to make an exception, but, speaking generally, the normal procedure of the Government will be not to put down the Bill when they have information that a Standing Committee is to sit. I have moved this Amendment for the purpose of giving the Home Secretary the opportunity of confirming that undertaking.

Mr. CLYNES: What the Prime Minister indicated was that he accepted the general purpose and spirit of this Amendment, but that if it were carried out it might very well give rise to difficulties which were not under the control of the Government. What precisely he has in mind as to the methods and ways of giving effect to its spirit and purpose, I cannot say, but while I accept the view that normally it would be advisable not to put down the Bill on a day on which Committees were sitting, yet there may be exceptions to that rule. That is only one, and there may be others. I think the House may very well agree to accept the very definite assurance which the Prime Minister has given, leaving it to him to give effect to it and honourably carry out its purpose.

Sir S. HOARE: I am quite prepared to leave the position as stated by the Home Secretary in view of the general undertaking that the Prime Minister has given.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I want to say one word on this, because on Standing Committees I have possibly as much as, if not more work than most Members. I should like to draw the Government's attention to what the Prime Minister said on this very important matter when he was giving evidence before the Select Committee dealing with the hours of sitting of the House. He spoke very strongly, indeed, against the fact that Standing Committees were sitting, more and more due to Government pressure, when the House was sitting. I would not do anything to upset the arrangement that is being made, but I do think, in the circumstances, as this is a most important matter, we ought to have a practical assurance that, as far as Government Measures are concerned, there will be no attempt whatever to force those Committees to deal with Government Bills upstairs. We have already had on at least one Standing Committee a threat that we may have to sit in the afternoons very shortly. If that threat is taken away, no one would wish to make any trouble at present. This does affect private Members' time and the whole position of private Members very greatly, for it is becoming increasingly difficult to attend Committees upstairs and downstairs at the same time.

Sir S. HOARE: After what the Home Secretary has said, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I should like to say we are grateful to the Prime Minister for making the concessions which he has made, and we have not felt compelled to move all the other Amendments; nevertheless we feel so strongly that no Closure Resolution should be applied to this Bill, that we shall have to divide against, the main Resolution.

Mr. LEIF JONES: If the Government are going to give an undertaking that a

Government Bill shall not be proceeded with upstairs in Committee at the same time as the Representation of the People Bill is taken on the Floor of the House, I suggest that it is in the House that they should exercise their discretion in fixing business, because under the Standing Orders the Committees upstairs are entitled to sit while the House is sitting, and I do not think the House should be under the impression that the Standing Orders can be set aside.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I agree with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that Members cannot be in two places at once, as an Irish Nationalist Member once said in this House. I sympathise with the objection to having Standing Committees sitting at the same time as the House is sitting. I remember the long drawn-out discussions on the Railway Bill 10 or 12 years ago which went on until 10 o'clock at night, even after the House had risen. That is a most objectionable practice, and I should be very glad to see it avoided as far as possible. The remedy is to meet downstairs in full Committee two days a week—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now going beyond the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to go beyond the Motion, but you cannot have important Measures on the Floor of the House if the Committee is to do its work.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 150.

Ordered,
That the Committee stage (including any Motion for an Instruction), the Report stage, and Third Reading of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

CLASS VII.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £85,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health and the Department of Health for Scotland)."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments and Brompton Cemetery."

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £49,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas."

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Public Works and Buildings in Ireland."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out "£85,000" and to insert instead thereof "£80,000."
This is one of the few occasions which private Members get to discuss the
financial bearings of the various Departments. The Supplementary Estimate for Labour and Health Buildings is made up of five different sums. The first is for new works, additions and alterations, for which another £10,000 is being asked. In view of the present position of affairs, and in view of the fact that the provision for improved accommodation has always been very large and the fact that £309,000 has already been spent, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why there is such a colossal increase. [Interruption.] One hon. Gentleman below the Gangway at least is interested in this matter. If he has anything further to say on the subject, and can give me any enlightenment, and do it better than Members on the Front Bench, I shall be delighted to listen to what he has to say.

Mr. PYBUS: Columbia record!

Mr WILLIAMS: I notice that I am glad to hear that one Member of the Liberal party at any rate loyally obeys his master's voice.

Mr. PYBUS: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that he notices that he is glad to hear?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is very exact in his wording, and in present circumstances it is as well that he should be exact. On the earlier stage of this Estimate, Subhead E was not cleared up. There is an increased provision for rents for temporary exchanges of £25,000. May we be informed in connection with this large sum—[An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen do not want to be informed. I have no doubt that dense ignorance is in many ways their best acquisition. May we be told why, in so many cases, they have taken temporary Employment Exchanges? Would it not have been possible to make additions to the existing Exchanges, and thus save adding to the burdens of the taxpayers?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major SALMON: I would like to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman some information regarding the figure which has been put down for a particular Exchange at Bristol to which he referred in his speech a few days ago. Will he say whether this is the only Employment
Exchange at Bristol, or whether there is more than one site for an Exchange in Bristol?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I would like to tell the hon. and gallant Member before he goes any further that it is only a very small sum in respect of the Bristol Exchange.

Major SALMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what, in fact, is the position? It may he necessary to have that Exchange, and I am not challenging that point, but I would like to understand the position. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman the other night, he twitted an hon. Member representing Bristol because there was not an Exchange in that part of the country. It would be interesting to know what site the Ministry have chosen for this Exchange, whether that site was the only one contemplated, and, also, whether there has been any difficulty in connection with it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give the House the details, as I feel they would be very interesting.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I am somewhat surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman takes the line that only a small amount of money is involved in this matter. I believe that one or two of my colleagues on this side will bear me out when I say that the site for this Exchange is in a very important and very expensive position. I may be wrong, and I speak under correction, but I believe it is a very expensive site. If my memory serves me rightly, the site was taken at £750 a year in perpetuity, we expended £700 or £800 on something, and we paid £500 compensation. We have already paid £3,500. If my memory serves me still further, we are under an obligation to erect on the site a building to cost something like £15,000, and now we are not going to take the site! If the right hon. Gentleman comes down now and says in a light and airy way, "Why there is nothing in this; there is no money involved, except a very small amount," then I must bear out what my hon. Friend has said. Here is something which must be unmasked, and we want to know all about it. Very properly the Minister for Labour found it necessary to go to the place in question very recently in order to find out what had
happened. I do not know what arrangements have been made, but I have been told that the site which was selected for the Employment Exchange was found to be entirely unsuitable. Had the First Commissioner of Works told us quite frankly that he had something to say about this extra requirement, I should not have gone into it so much, but it seems extraordinary that he should get up in this way as if only a few pounds were at stake.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) has put the question, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say what he is going to do with the £15,000 liability, and whether there is yet any settlement made as to what sites will be used, and whether the particular site to which I have referred has been utterly done away with and disregarded. Hon. Members behind me will probably want to know what arrangements have been made. I support the hon. Member below the Gangway in asking the Minister to fill in the details as to the local requirements in order that we may get to the bottom of this matter.

Major COLFOX: I am not proposing to refer to what has been said about the Bristol Exchange, but there are one or two points which, in my judgment, require an explanation. The first point upon which I should like some further information is the item of £5,000 under the heading of repairs and maintenance. It appears to me that when you are dealing with the repairs and maintenance of a considerable number of buildings scattered over a considerable area, it ought to be possible to estimate the cost much more accurately than has been done in this case. After all, this country is not subject to violent storms and hurricanes that destroy buildings on a large scale, and surely this Estimate of £5,000 is most unworthy, and calls for an explanation. Another point to which I should like to call attention is the Estimate of £7,000 required for buying new furniture for the new offices. During the earliest stage of the Supplementary Estimate a question was put on this subject, but it was not answered. I want to know why it is considered necessary always to buy new furniture for these new offices, because it is well known that when offices are closed and discarded,
the old furniture is disposed of at a great sacrifice, and when new offices are erected new furniture is bought. There is always a constant supply of secondhand furniture which is available, and with which the private citizens of this country have to content themselves. Much of the second-hand furniture which is on offer in the shops throughout all the towns of this country would amply suffice for the needs of Government offices, and a substantial saving might be made in that direction.
The third point to which I desire to direct attention, and on which I should like some information, is with regard to what has come to be known as the restoration of the super-cut. When the original Estimates were under discussion in the different Departments of the Government, the over-ruling authority, that is to say, I suppose, the Treasury, decided that many of these Estimates should be subject to a super-cut—in this case a matter of £38,000. It seems to me to be futile and useless for these super-cuts to be imposed unless they are insisted upon and acted upon, but here we find that a Government Department which, probably quite rightly, has been subjected to one of these super-cuts, has paid no attention to the instructions which it has received from the Treasury in this matter, but, apparently, has gone on spending money over and above the sum granted to it by Parliament to such an extent that the super-cut has been wiped out and the amount has had to be reinstated in the Supplementary Estimate.
This present Estimate is not the only one to which these remarks apply. There are numerous other Estimates in the case of which the super-cut has been reinstated in the Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, it seems to me to be extremely necessary that we should have an adequate explanation as to why the various Departments, and this one in particular, have not carried out the orders which they have received from Parliament, namely, to spend not more than a certain sum of money. This House votes regularly that "a sum not exceeding" a certain amount shall be granted to His Majesty for certain services, but that amount is frequently exceeded, in spite of the wording of the
Resolution which authorises the expenditure. It seems to me to be futile that we should go on year after year authorising certain Departments to spend sums not exceedings certain amounts, well knowing that they may, and frequently do, exceed those amounts. Having spent the money, as in this case, they come to the House of Commons and ask for authority to cover their transgression in this respect and to whitewash their sins. It seems to me that it would be only right and proper that they should be refused these supplementary amounts, because they have definitely gone against the instructions of Parliament. This is not the only case of the kind in these Supplementary Estimates. If we can be given a satisfactory answer why those super-cuts have been reinstated, it may not be necessary to refer to each one as we come across it, but it is only right to the House that that satisfactory, explanation should be given once and for all and as soon as possible.

Captain GUNSTON: If I remember rightly, when we discussed the Estimates in Committee we were told that the money had been spent owing to the very good weather we have had this year and that there had been no delay in building. The super-cut had not worked because the climate had not delayed operations as it did last year. It would be very easy for any Government to super-cut the Estimates and say. "We are making economies in this, that and the other," when all that is happening is that they are handing it on to the next year. We ought to be given some explanation of the policy in regard to the super-cut.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I should not have intervened if I had not heard the name of Bristol mentioned. I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) for having raised this question, which I was too modest to mention before. My hon. and gallant Friend, in complaining of the expenditure on the Bristol Exchange, can have no idea of the vast increase in unemployment that has taken place there since the present Government took office, otherwise he would have realised how urgent was the necessity for a better and a more commodious Exchange. I
have risen to my feet because the Minister has given such unsatisfactory replies in the past. I hope he will reply to the very pertinent questions which my hon. Friend has put to him. He accused me of pestering and badgering him for the last three years. He came in as a new broom who would be expected to sweep clean, but he has done nothing but collect dirt since he stepped into office. We hoped that he would carry out improvements which, perhaps, had not been made possible, or which the Conservative Administration had not had time to effect. The right hon. Gentleman has consistently given me unsatisfactory replies and he must not be surprised if I have consistently badgered him on the point. Even now I am not sure when he actually intends starting work on the Exchange.
Included in this Estimate there is a certain amount of money for expenditure on it. I could not get out of him on the last occasion what amount was included or for what purpose it was included. I hope he will give us an answer to the question this evening. I should be out of order in asking him when he really intends starting work on this Exchange. Perhaps he will find an opportunity of mentioning it in his reply. He has included in this Estimate a sum for expenditure upon this Exchange. It is an unknown amount, and I think we are entitled to know exactly upon what it is being spent. I agree with my right hon. Friend that there has been waste over this question. The question has been hanging over for months, and, indeed, for years, not only to the inconvenience of those who are interested in this question, but to the inconvenience of a great number of unemployed in Bristol. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to hasten work upon this particular object, to give us an explanation of the expenditure which is included in this Vote, and that he will try to display a little more energy in this respect than he has been able to display in the past.

Mr. SMITHERS: During the Committee stage of these Supplementary Estimates I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question which he made no attempt whatever to answer. I wish to repeat it to-night, in the hope that he has had time to make the necessary Inquiries. I want to call attention to the money expended upon what I may call
non-wasting assets, that is to say upon furniture, new works, additions and purchases. When this money is spent, is it completely written off and no account taken of it in the financial accounts at the end of the year, or is some credit allowed? Is some credit taken for those non-wasting assets, and is the Budget richer to that extent?

Mr. ALBERY: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman for an answer to a question which I put to him the other day in Committee, as to whether he can give the House an explanation of the discrepancy which appears to exist between the cost of building Employment Exchanges in one city and the cost of building Employment Exchanges in another city of somewhat similar standard. Can we be assured that every effort is made to practice economy in this respect? It appears that in the City of Glasgow an Employment Exchange costs £28,000, whereas in the City of Sheffield, which I imagine is a city of not greater importance, it costs £39,000. I wonder how it is that there is this discrepancy?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see any sums put down in his Estimate for new buildings.

Mr. ALBERY: I understood that the Supplementary Estimate covered those items to some small extent, and I thought that I was in order in that case in asking those questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Estimate is for improved accommodation, and not for new buildings.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On that point of Order. Item E refers to:
Provision required consequent upon the hiring of additional premises for use as temporary Employment Exchanges.
Does not that cover the point?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is for hiring, and not for building.

Mr. WILLIAMS: You have to build on what you hire.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: We are always in a difficulty on a Vote of this kind. On page 17 of the Supplementary Estimates there is a figure of £38,000, comprising Items A to N. We do not know to what particular items that £38,000 can be
allocated. It seems to cover so much ground that perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, might find it possible to allow the discussion to take place, because some of the money may refer to the points with which the hon. Member is dealing.

Mr. SPEAKER: It does not happen to deal with them.

Mr. EVERARD: In Item E there is the sum of £25,000 which, I gather, is due to the increase in unemployment. As I represent a very scattered area, I have received a good many complaints from people about their difficulty in having to go to Employment Exchanges a long way from home. Is any part of this sum devoted to the temporary Employment Exchanges in rural areas? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that there are large numbers of unemployed who have to go many miles to draw their out-of-work pay. I know it has been said, when I have asked the Government before about this point, that there are plenty of omnibus services and so on. That is not so. A great many of these out-of-the-way places are not connected up with Exchanges in rural areas by omnibus services at all. I should like some satisfactory answer on that point, and to know that some portion of this sum is expended on improving the Employment Exchanges in rural areas.
Then we have heard a great deal about building a new Exchange in Bristol. I should like to know whether the facilities there are any different from the facilities in Leicester and whether any part of this £10,000 for new works is being devoted to the improvement of Employment Exchanges in Leicester, seeing that that money can be found for improvements in Bristol? The last point is this: I see that we are asked to find another £7,000 for furniture. Can the hon. Gentleman give a satisfactory assurance that none of this £7,000 is being devoted to the purchase of furniture made with Russian timber? We are passing through very difficult times in this country, we have many people unemployed in the furniture trade and we have difficulty with our Canadian friends in finding a market for timber. I certainly think the least the Government can do, when they come to this House with an Estimate of £7,000 for new furniture for a Government Department, is to say definitely that the
money is to be spent on furniture made from timber from the British Empire, and not from any foreign countries. I have raised the question of the use of foreign goods by Government Departments a great many times in this House, and I have never received a satisfactory answer. The hon. Gentleman says that if they can get it cheaper from Russia, why not do it, and so on? Personally, I am one of those who believe that it is cheapest in the long run to buy from our own people or the Dominions. I shall not be satisfied unless I get a definite assurance that the whole of this furniture is made from timber from the British Empire.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: During the Committee proceedings I addressed to the First Commissioner a definite question in regard to Russian timber, but he refused to give me an answer. The right hon. Gentleman took umbrage at my suggestion that he had special knowledge of Russian timber. I did not think that he would take that as an insult, but rather as a compliment. I am sorry that I said he had special knowledge of that kind. I asked him at Question Time whether he would give an undertaking not to use Russian timber in any of the work of his Department, but he gave me a negative reply worthy of the late President of the Board of Education. Having regard to that refusal, I think my hon. Friends are entitled to raise this matter on the question of furniture.
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that there is some sincerity on this side of the House. A great many of us have been deeply moved by the evidence which has been produced about this very terrible matter, and we think that it would be a crime for any Government Department to use any Russian timber. We think that it is unpatriotic for a private contractor to use Russian timber, and for any Government Department to use it is an insult to the British unemployed. We do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has consciously used Russian timber, but as he has not taken any precautions against using it, we must insist upon an answer. He could easily issue regulations and take precautions to acquire information on the subject. It may be that in connection with this particular Vote Russian timber may be
used. As the right hon. Gentleman is. a man of humane and gentle character in private life we ask him to use the same principles in public life that he uses in private life, and protect the British workmen against this tragic form of competition.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Lansbury.

Mr. McKINLAY: I consider that grossly unfair.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. Member wishes, I will give way.

Mr. McKINLAY: No, but it is grossly unfair. I was on my feet before the Minister got up.

Mr. LANSBURY: The discussion this evening has ranged over some of the questions that we thoroughly discussed the other night. [HON. MEMBERS: "But we got no answer!"] The point in regard to the cut is this, that we take our experience over a number of years, and on that experience we base the cut. It appears this year that we have been extremely fortunate in our negotiations for buying sites and in carrying on the work of building Exchanges, and the consequence is that instead of being able to save on the cut we have had to spend it. With regard to furniture, I am not able to decide whether Russian timber shall or shall not come into the country. That is not my business. My business is to get the job carried through as efficiently and as cheaply as possible, with this one exception, of which I told the Committee the other night, that this Department and all Government Departments are carrying out the policy laid down by the previous Government, that an advantage of so much per cent. shall be given to British goods, whether made in the Dominions or produced in the Dominions, or in this country. That is being carried out at the present time.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask whether Russian timber is used?

Mr. LANSBURY: It may or may not be used, but I have no authority to prohibit the use of Russian timber. It is allowed to be used in this country; there is no order by the Government or by this House to say that Russian timber shall not be used, and I have no power to prohibit its use. That is the only
answer I can give the hon. Member; I have no power, no authority, to discriminate against Russia or any other foreign country. I am carrying out the principles laid down by the late Government that British producers, Dominion producers and our Colonial producers, shall have up to a certain percentage an advantage over all foreign goods.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power in making his contracts to see that only British or other timber is used?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have only power to do that up to a certain percentage, as I have tried to tell the hon. Member several times. I have not that power, and I do not propose to ask for it. This question must be dealt with on a national basis and not by a single Department. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for Melton Mowbray (Mr. Everard), some of the hirings are in regard to smaller districts. I answered the question about furniture very fully the other night. It is needed because of the increase in temporary Exchanges, and we can only deal with the matter by putting in the sort of furniture that is needed. It must be remembered that chairs, tables, cabinets and partitions are required; things which one does not have in one's own home. With regard to the Bristol Employment Exchange, this matter is now before the Public Accounts Committee, and it would be rather injudicious of me to discuss the matter tonight. It is not in this Supplementary Estimate except that we are having to provide for a new site. I do not want to put the blame on anyone these things happen. The Public Accounts Committee are investigating it, and although I had nothing to do with the purchase of the existing site, I think, in fairness to my predecessor and to the Department, we should await the report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that in all Government contracts, for timber or for anything else, there is a Fair Wages Clause? Is there the same Clause in respect of Russian timber?

Mr. LANSBURY: The Clause is in all contracts—exactly the same Clause as my predecessor had.

Mr. McKINLAY: Why does the Department insist on using synthetic stone instead of natural stone which can be obtained in abundance in Scotland? Representations have been made that natural stone should be used in the erection of buildings, but in spite of that fact synthetic stone is used. It is not because there is any great difference in the cost of the two articles. In regard to furniture, I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are aware that we do not usually make furniture from Russian timber, and that is simply because the timber is not suitable for the purpose. I believe that we make a considerable amount of furniture from timber which comes from a place where the conditions are even worse than in Russia. In countries which supply mahogany the conditions are infinitely worse than in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That statement is no more nonsense than the suggestion from the other side that Baltic timber can be used for the making of office furniture. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that due consideration will be given to unemployment amongst the quarrymen of Scotland, and that as far as possible natural stone will be used for carrying out the contracts of the Department.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask one question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are now on the Report stage and the hon. Member can speak only once.

Mr. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. The First Commissioner asked me, in regard to Bristol, not to put my question about money, and I accede to that request, but I would like to put the question whether he has provided the site.

Mr. SMITHERS: On two occasions I have put a perfectly reasonable question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and each time he has remained silent and refused to answer me.

Question put, "That '£85,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 129.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[9.31 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Benson, G.
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cameron, A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Birkett, W. Norman
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Blindell, James
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Chater, Daniel


Arnott, John
Bowen, J. W.
Clarke, J. S.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brooke, W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Ayles, Walter
Brothers, M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Daggar, George


Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.
Dallas, George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Burgess, F. G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Richards, R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dukes, C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Duncan, Charles
Leach, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Rowson, Guy


Edmunds, J. E.
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel Rt. Ron. Sir H. (Darwen)


Egan, W. H.
Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Foot, Isaac
Logan, David Gilbert
Sanders, W. S.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Longbottom, A. W.
Sandham, E.


Freeman, Peter
Longden, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Sexton, Sir James


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea[...])
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Mac Donald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gill, T. H.
McElwee, A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Glassey, A. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Shield, George William


Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gould, F.
MacLaren, Andrew
Shillaker, J. F.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shinwell, E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Granville, E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Simmons, C. J.


Gray, Milner
McShane, John James
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Groves, Thomas E.
March, S.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marcus, M.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, J.
Snell, Harry


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mathers, George
Sorensen, R.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Melville, Sir James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zotland)
Messer, Fred
Stephen, Campbell


Hardle, George D.
Middleton, G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millar, J. D.
Sullivan, J.


Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Milner, Major J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Herriotts, J.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tillett, Ben


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mort, D. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hoffman, P. C.
Muff, G.
Toole, Joseph


Hopkin, Daniel
Muggeridge, H. T.
Tout, w. J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Murnin, Hugh
Townend, A. E.


Hudson, James H. (Huddarsfield)
Naylor, T. E.
Vaughan, David


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Viant, S. P.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Noel Baker, P. J
Walkden, A. G.


Isaacs, George
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Walker, J.


Jenkins, Sir William
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Watkins, F. C.


Johnston, Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, Wilfrid
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palmer, E. T.
West, F. R.


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Westwood, Joseph


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Perry, S. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kelly, W. T.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kinley, J.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Knight, Holford
Potts, John S.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lang, Gordon
Price, M. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pybus, Percy John



Lathan, G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Raynes, W. R.



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, E. T.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bird, Ernest Roy
Carver, Major W. H.


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l..W.)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Allan, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Boyce, Leslie
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)


Astor, Viscountess
Bracken, B.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brass, Captain Sir William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)


Atkinson, C.
Briscoe, Richard George
Chapman, Sir S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Christle, J. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Buchan-Hepburn, P, G. T.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Buchan, John
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Butler, R. A.
Colfox, Major William Philip




Conway, Sir W. Martin
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cranborne, Vitcount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Culverwell, c. T. (Bristol, West)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurd, Percy A.
Se[...]soon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Savery, S. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smithers, Waldron


Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ferguson, Sir John
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fielden, E. B.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell-Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomson, Sir F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Grace, John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grattan-Doyle, sir N
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, Sydney R.


Gunstan, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, John R.



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Captain Margesson and Captain




 Wallace.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[11.8 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Haycock, A. W.
Oldfield, J. R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palin, John Henry


Ammon, Charles George
Herriotts, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Arnott, John
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Perry, S. F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hoffman, P. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ayles, Walter
Hollins, A.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Barnes, Alfred John
Hopkin, Daniel
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Price, M. P.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pybus, Percy John


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Johnston, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Birkett, W. Norman
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Richards, R.


Blindell, James
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Romeril, H. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rothschild, J. de


Brooke, W.
Kinlay, J.
Rowson, Guy


Brothers, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lang, Gordon
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sawyer, G. F.


Buchanan, G.
Lathan, G.
Scrymgeour, E.


Burgess, F. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sexton, Sir James


Eurgin, Dr. E. L.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Lawrence, Susan
Shaw, Ht. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawson, John James
Sherwood, G. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shield, George William


Chater, Daniel
Leach, w.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Clarke, J. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shinwell, E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lees, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Compton, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dallas, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Longden, F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Sorensen, R.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dukes, C
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, Charles
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strauss, G. R.


Ede. James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Sullivan, J.


Edmunds, J. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Eqan, W. H.
McKinlay, A.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Elmley, Viscount
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Foot, Isaac
McShane, John James
Tillett, Ben


Freeman, Peter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Manning, E. L.
Toole, Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mansfield, W.
Tout, W. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marcus, M.
Townend, A. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Markham, S. F.
Vaughan, David


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Marley, J.
Viant, S. P.


Gill, T. H.
Marshall, Fred
Walkden, A. G.


Gillett, George M.
Mathers, George
Walker, J.


Glassey, A. E.
Matters, L. W.
Watkins, F. C.


Gossling, A. G.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gould, F.
Melville, Sir James
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Messer, Fred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Middleton, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Granville, E.
Mills, J. E.
West, F. R.


Gray, Milner
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muff, G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Murnin, Hugh
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wise, E. F.


Hardle, George D.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Karris, Percy A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.




NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Ferguson, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Albery, Irving James
Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Astor, Viscountess
Ford, Sir P. J.
Muirhead, A. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
O'Connor, T. J.


Boothby, B. J. G.
Glyn, Major H. G. C.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boyce, Leslie
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Butler, R. A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Christle, J. A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomson, Sir F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, com. O.(Handsw'th)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Womersley, W. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.



Edmondson. Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Millar, J. D.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Warrender.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: This Vote makes provision for further accommodation for the Inland Revenue authorities, and I presume that it provides further accommodation at Cambridge.

Mr. SPEAKER: The only reason for this Vote is that the works have been done quicker than was anticipated. If the hon. Member can show that the work ought to have gone slower than it did, he will be in order.

Sir D. NEWTON: I want to draw attention to the fact that the work is not going half quickly enough.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Vote is put down because the work has gone too quickly.

Sir D. NEWTON: I am sorry if I am not in order. This is a serious question for the staff which is engaged in the offices—

Mr. LANSBURY: The staff and accommodation at Cambridge have nothing to do with it.

Mr. SMITHERS: I should like to put the question which I put on the last occasion. I have learned by the courtesy of the Gentlemen who sit behind the Chair that the answer was sent to the Financial Secretary, and that he knew what the answer was when I last asked the question.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): If we buy furniture, we, must, of course, pay for it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman would not be in order in going into that matter.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have handed in a manuscript. Amendment—

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not select that Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If I am not in order, I will enter a protest against the difficulty of ascertaining exactly where the fresh expenditure is required. The right hon. Gentleman states in the White Paper that this £19,500 is required under the various Sub-heads A to V in the original Estimate. What we object to is that it is impossible to tell where the £19,500 has gone to. If it is really spread over all those Sub-heads, then that would include Sub-head C, for furniture, and it is possible there was extra expenditure there. Apart from that, the statement does not seem to be quite accurate, because between A and V come Q, R, S, and T, most of them referring to services in respect of which it is possible to recover the expenditure from the Post Office. If any of the expenditure were under those Sub-heads it would be necessary to increase the Appropriations-in-Aid, and as that has not been done we are driven to the conclusion that those Sub-heads are not concerned with this £19,500 and that therefore the statement that it applies to A to V ought to be amended to, say, "A to P, inclusive." What I have said shows the difficulty of this form of Supplementary Estimate. I also wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that here we have a deduction of £19,500 in respect of £1,171,000, whereas in the Estimate we have just discussed we had a super-cut of £38,000 on a total Estimate of half that amount, £689,000. We wish to know on what principle this has been worked, and to protest against the scattering amongst all the Sub-heads of the gross amount of the Supplementary Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: When the Vote was before the Committee the First Commissioner of Works promised to convey to the Postmaster-General a request for information as to whether certain work in post offices in rural areas had been accelerated. The right hon. Gentleman has not communicated with me, and I should like to know whether the improvements he mentioned have actually been carried out. As I told him at the time, there are a lot of rural post offices which have no telephone boxes; the telephones are in the kitchens.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should have been raised on the main Estimates which have already passed the House. The only question which can arise on a Supplementary Estimate must concern the additional sum which is asked for. In this case, the extra money was required because the work already sanctioned had been put in hand more quickly.

Mr. EVERARD: Are we not entitled to ask under which of the Sub-heads A to V the work has been accelerated?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be quite in order.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would remind the First Commissioner that he promised to convey to the Postmaster-General a request for information, and I have heard nothing since.

Mr. EVERARD: I wish to ask under which of these sub-heads this extra £19,500 has been expended. We have a long list of things in paragraphs (a) to (b) dealing with new works, furniture and maintenance in connection with the Inland Revenue buildings. There is also an item in connection with the Post Office and Telegraphs building. It is a very extraordinary thing that the House should not have any sort of idea as to why all this expenditure is being incurred. I listened very carefully to the discussion on the Committee stage of this Vote, and I do not think that the First Commissioner of Works gave the Committee any idea as to how all this money had been spent. I do not intend to allow this Vote to go through unchallenged unless we get some further explanation from the Minister.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not quite sure that I understood rightly your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I believe you said that you did not propose to select or accept any manuscript Amendments. I wish to know if you are taking that course under Standing Order 27A.

Mr. SPEAKER: I propose to do so under the powers which the Standing Order gives me to select Amendments.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like to know whether the powers under Standing Order 27A apply to
Amendments which take the form of a reduction of the Estimates. I should like to be quite clear on this point.

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, my power of selection applies to all forms of Amendments, no matter what they are. In this case, I object to Amendments being handed in late in the evening when the Vote has been on the Order Paper for several days, and when it was easy for hon. Members to put their Amendments down.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will only say in extenuation that, so far as my hon. Friends are concerned, we had no idea that the Government proposed to take these Votes to-night. We thought that all that they wanted was to get the Guillotine Motion through. Had we known that these Votes were going to be taken we should have taken another course.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that it is quite impossible to proceed in the way suggested. There are 21 different items in this Vote, and they concern a number of departments, such as the Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Telegraphs. I should have thought that, in view of the discussion which took place on the Committee stage, instead of hon. Members asking why this and that had been done and why more works had not been carried out they would have congratulated the Department upon having done so much of this very necessary work. May I point out that we have now a new Postmaster-General, and he has not had an opportunity of looking into these matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir JOHN GANZONI: I notice that in the Committee stage of this Resolution the time taken up by the Debate was extremely short, and that there was no Division. I do not know whether that was out of consideration for the Minister in charge, who was suffering from a regrettable loss of voice, for which we were all extremely sorry, or whether it was due to the more natural, human cause that it happened to be just about
the dinner hour, or what the exact reason was, but the Resolution does not appear to have been gone very deeply into in Committee, and there are one or two points about which I should like to know something. I notice that the-Minister said that he had been able to put to work some 566 men for 22 weeks by spending, or at any rate partly by spending, this extra amount of £42,000 during the current year, and the supplementary amount, of course, was for "Unemployment Relief Works." The nature of the works is somewhat varied. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman said that he only undertook them on the advice of skilled expert advisers.
They are of a somewhat miscellaneous character, including additions and alterations to paths, painting or tarring, hurdles, fences, shin-rails, etc., cleaning out and weeding lakes, ponds and. streams, and so on. I do not know whether that work of cleaning out included the work which we have seen recently in St. James's Park opposite the Horse Guards Parade, where there are many birds and waterfowl—[Interruption]—yes, it is the home of the pelican. I remember noticing there some two or three weeks ago, on several days in succession, a very remarkable aroma, not to say stench or effluvium, but on one day I noticed a very decided improvement. The water had completely disappeared from one side of that great lake, and a, large number of men were hard at work upon what was then dry ground. I hope that these were some of the unemployed, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reasssure me as to what kind of unemployed they were, because the work set forth by the right hon. Gentleman—which I may say included also the removal of dead trees and timber and replanting, relaying land drains, attention to undergrowth, restoring grass areas, and digging and screening gravel—does not seem to me to supply, even at a cost of £42,000, the kind of work that would be of very much use to out-of-work clerks or shop assistants. I should like to be reassured that the right hon. Gentleman has remembered that in these deplorable times, when there are 2,600,000 unemployed, there must be among them men of very varying occupations, and that he will remember the interests of all of them when he is spending this £42,000 in the nine or 10 different parks which he
enumerated. I shall be very glad to supply him with further ideas; in fact, in conclusion, I will make him a present of one, and that is that, if there should be among the unemployed any man who is not capable of really hard work in the parks, the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps see his way to appointing a permanent valet for the pelicans, so that we shall not be offended by seeing that cafe au lait colour upon their beautiful plumage.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do this in order to make a suggestion. There are two Votes in which we are particularly interested, Class 7, Vote 9, and Class 6, Vote 6. As regards the first, we had an understanding with the Chief Commissioner, that if we did not take the discussion in Committee we should have it at a later stage. It would be more consonant with a proper discussion of these subjects if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to adjourn the discussion now and take them at a more reasonable hour. If he is prepared to do that, I can undertake on behalf of my friends behind me, that there will be no undue prolongation of the Debate on the other points.

Mr. LANSBURY: None of us want to be up too late, especially myself. The proposal is that we should take Class 7, Vote 9, and Class 6, Vote 6, on another occasion at a reasonable hour and that we shall only devote a reasonable time to them. It must not be taken that we are going to give a day to two Votes. We shall be very glad to agree to this proposal. I would ask, in view of that, that we should get the other Votes, which were thoroughly discussed in Committee.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. ALBERY: When this Vote was in Committee the right hon. Gentleman was asked what proportion of it was due to Brompton Cemetery and to what extent
the cemetery was concerned in the Vote, but the information was not given.

Mr. LANSBURY: There is nothing in this Vote for Brompton Cemetery.

Question put, and agreed to.

Fifth Resolution read a Second time, and postponed.

Sixth Resolution agreed to.

Postponed Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.

REPORT [25th February].

Resolutions reported,

(1) Committee Stage.

Six allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.

TABLE I.—Committee Stage.


Allotted Day.

Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.





P.M.


First
—
Instructions and Clause 1
10.30


Second
—
Clauses 2 and 3
10.30


Third
—
Clauses 4 and 5
10.30


Fourth
—
Clause 6
10.30


Fifth
—
Clauses 7 to 9
10.30


Sixth
—
New Clauses, Schedules, new Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee Stage to a conclusion
10.30

(2) Report Stage and Third Reading.

Three allotted days shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the following Table, and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

TABLE II.—Report Stage and Third Reading.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
—
New Clauses and Clauses 1 to 4
10.30


Second
—
Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report Stage to a conclusion
10.30


Third
—
Third Reading
10.30

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation, any day, other than a Friday, after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day far the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, and the Bill may
be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker, shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to he brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall he received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particcular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

Orders of the Day — ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Official arbitrators in Scotland not debarred front private practice.)

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Clause 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided always that a person so appointed shall carry out his duties as arbitrator without payment from State funds.
This is a manuscript Amendment, and I think I am in order in moving it. It is a simple Amendment. When the Bill was presented last night the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made out the Government's case on the fact that they were saving about £1,000 a year by the Bill. If hon. Members will look at the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State, on column 106 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will see that the cost to the Treasury per day of one of these arbitrations will be £6 5s. In a case such as this the arbitrator, as I understand it, gets a certain fixed fee from the people between whom he is arbitrating, and then he is going to get from the State a further sum of £6 5s. per day, which is a fixed minimum, and he may get more. I do not wish to make it impossible to get the best men, and I do not wish to make it impossible for the men to get a fair fee, but as they are arbitrating between two individuals, the State may be one of the parties in certain cases, then the individuals ought to pay for the arbitration, and not the country as a whole. I am prepared to allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to lay down what fees he considers fit and proper, but I think it is unnecessary that we should call on the Treasury to pay any fee unless the Treasury themselves are parties to the arbitration.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): We have had no notice whatever of the intention of the hon. Member to move this Amendment and, therefore, we have been unable
to consider its possible effect. This is not a Money Bill at all. It is designed solely for the purpose of enabling the Lord President of the Court of Session, instead of appointing a full-time arbitrator at a fixed salary, such as has been the case hitherto, to appoint half-time arbitrators, or to draw up a panel from which arbitrators may be selected. The Regulations under the Act of 1919 provide that the Treasury shall lay down a scale of fees which the arbitrator may charge the disputants in an arbitration, but as there may be cases in which the Government may be interested there will be occasions upon which the Government will be compelled to pay part of the arbitrator's fees, and in those circumstances the hon. Member's Amendment is clearly inappropriate. I hope that after this explanation he will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I apologise for not having given the Under-Secretary any notice of this Amendment, but it was inconceivable that the Government could possibly ask the House to proceed with this Bill after the discussion we had yesterday. At the same time, I apologise most sincerely for not having given due notice of the Amendment. I think the argument of the Under-Secretary could be easily met if he would accept the Amendment in such a way that we could on the Report stage consider this matter. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland is coming quite clearly to my view of this matter. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment now and amend it on the Report stage.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I am sorry to have to refuse the hon. Member's request. It would prevent us carrying out the purposes of the Bill, which are two; one, to save money, and there is no doubt that the Bill will do that, and the other to enable us to get a larger number of arbitrations decided. We have not had time to consider the implications of the Amendment, and the hon. Member cannot expect us to accept it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I ask whether the Secretary of State will frame some Amendment for the Report stage? That is a perfectly fair request, and I think I am justified in asking it. For the
third time, I apologise for not having put the Amendment down. I would much prefer to have done so for to-morrow or the next day so that the right hon. Gentleman could discuss it with the Department, when I have no doubt they would have accepted my proposal.

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the hon. Member asks leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not done so yet.

Major HARVEY: I really think that we should have some reply from the Government to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). They have complained that they have received no notice of the Amendment, but from what I can gather from the smiles on the Front Bench they would have taken no notice of it even if they had received plenty of time. This is treating the taxpayer in a very careless manner, and I must stand up for the rights of the taxpayer. I do not often speak in the House, and I hope the hon. Member will not withdraw his Amendment until he has had some assurance that the Government will give some consideration to this matter. He has apologised three times already for not putting the Amendment down, but the Government take no notice of it at all. I must strongly protest on behalf of the taxpayers.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: The Government tell us that they are saving money for the taxpayer by this Bill. That is a very laudable occupation on their part, and it is an occupation to which we are somewhat unaccustomed from them. May I point out that unless they accept the Amendment there will be no Report stage whatever and, therefore, it will be impossible to consider the Bill again? I suggest that they should accept the Amendment, and then we shall have an opportunity of considering the matter again on Report.

Sir BASIL PETO: I feel that we have not had an adequate reply from the Government. The Secretary of State says that the purpose of this Bill is, first, to save expense to the taxpayers and secondly, to get through a larger number of arbitrations. It is quite clear that, while economy is a, very good pur-
pose in any Bill, the money which is going to be saved will be a charge upon somebody else, and I should like to know upon whom this additional charge will fall. We cannot make a saving without it being a cost upon someone else, and I think we are entitled to know the saving which the Secretary of State estimates will be made and upon whom that extra charge will be placed. If you have a whole-time official, presumably on a fixed salary, a certain proportion of it will be allocated to an individual arbitration. If you have a sort of free lance in the field of arbitration, what scale of fees will have to be paid in an arbitration? [Interruption.] I am concerned, not only about a saving of the charge on the Treasury, but about the protection of the unfortunate people of Scotland who may have to resort to these arbitrations. [Interruption.] The explanation given to us by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary is not adequate.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is one point to which I wish to direct attention. In these times I am the last person in the world to object to any proposal which tends to, or which it is hoped will, effect an economy. I understand that the economy to be effected here is something in the nature of £1,000. Why is the proposal not being carried further? Why are we presented with a Bill applying solely to Scotland?

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a Second Reading speech at this stage.

10.0 p.m.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This proposal is a departure from principle, and I think I shall be in order in saying what I wish to say. When the original Bill was being discussed, an Amendment was moved, and I ask the Committee to appreciate what was the attitude of the Government at that time when that Amendment was moved. The case against the Amendment was then stated by Sir Gordon Hewart, the present Lord Chief Justice. An Amendment was moved by an hon. Friend of mine, since dead—Mr. Rawlinson, the Member for Cambridge University. Sir Gordon Hewart then said:
The proposal raises a question as between whole-time officers and practising surveyors engaged for employment as arbitrators. That question lies at the very root of this Bill. It has been most carefully and most anxiously considered, and the deliberate conclusion of those who are responsible for the framing of this Bill is that the valuers to be appointed under it should be whole-time officers whose sole occupation should be the discharge of the duties which the Bill will impose on them. I do not want to labour the objections to the alternative system. It is reasonably obvious that where gentlemen are to be put in a judicial or quasi-judicial position, it is desirable, if possible, that they should be prevented from acting as partisans on one side or the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1919; col. 228, Vol. 117.]
That has been the principle since 1919, and now for the first time we are departing from the principle. I ask the Government whether there is any intention to translate the policy in this Bill into a Bill affecting England.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think the Committee understands how bad this Clause is, because we are reversing one of the great Land Acts which were formulated and passed by a majority at the time of the Coalition Parliament under a Liberal Prime Minister. If the Liberal party have any life in them, they will put up a great fight against this Clause. Under this Clause, as the Government are forcing it through without accepting any reasonable Amendments which we have put down, what really happens is that one of the vital principles in the acquisition of land is being broken and cast aside, and thrown away in a disgraceful manner. I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with me in his heart, although perhaps his head will not allow him to say so. The position is, that under the 1919 Act you appointed an arbitrator who was to spend his whole time in carrying out this Act, but because of the extraordinary lavishness of that Government, you appointed two or three arbitrators in Scotland, but you had not enough work for one arbitrator.
That is typical of the leader and owner of the Liberal party. That is the reason of this Clause, and you finally came from your three arbitrators to one arbitrator, and then one arbitrator got sick and passed away, and so, for a considerable time, there has been no arbitrator, and Scotland got on very well without one. I see the right hon. Gentleman the
Secretary of State for Scotland is beginning to shift his seat. I cannot understand why no legal advice has been given to us. I mentioned a moment or two ago that there was no arbitrator, and, in the circumstances, why should we not, instead of giving a Scottish arbitrator, give to Scotland a thoroughly efficient arbitrator from England to do the job every now and then? Every Scotchman would agree that it would be a matter for rejoicing if an Englishman could be given jobs in Scotland, because the jobs would be done much better than they are now.
Then another point came up comparatively late in the Debate last night. This panel of arbitrators is appointed, and the Under-Secretary for Scotland in the goodness of his heart gave us a little information on the matter. He said:
The reference committee for Scotland is composed of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 2nd March, 1931 col. 107, Vol. 249.]
Those are the people who are going to choose and appoint these arbitrators. I have no objection to any of these people in themselves, because I do not happen to know them. If I did know them, I should be in a better position to judge; that is quite obvious. I want to know a few points in connection with this panel. Why, in setting up a panel of people to deal with land, do the Government have no one directly connected with land as arbitrators? Surely this panel should be based on one agricultural labourer, one landowner, one farmer, so that all three sections of the agricultural industry should be properly represented, one lawyer to represent hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, I think in these modern days, it would be wise to have someone representing the other sex as well. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why he thinks these are the best people to set up a panel of this kind. I have al ways held that you should set up such a panel in one of two ways.

The CHAIRMAN: This Clause has nothing to do with the setting up of the panel. It has to do with the members who are placed on the panel, and whether they shall give whole or part-time service.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I quite realise that, so I will come back to the numbers of the people who are to be put on the panel. On that we have no information whatever. I want to know how many people are definitely going to be put on this panel, and what type of person is going to be put on, because we had no information on this point last night. Before I can vote for this Clause standing part, I must have some very definite information as to the type of person to deal with this important question. The Government are changing the whole principle under which we have been acting for 10 or 12 years, and before that principle is changed, I want to be quite sure that we are changing it for the better, and to know that we are to have the very best people possible to carry on this important work. I do not see how I can vote for this Clause.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down speaks with such knowledge of Scottish affairs and takes such an interest in them, that there is no need for me to try to teach him anything further regarding the Bill.

Mr. PYBUS: It would be a waste of time.

Mr. ADAMSON: With regard to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), he is right in saying that in 1919 when this matter was discussed, definite opinions were expressed on the question of putting these people on a part-time or a whole-time basis. The view of the Government of that day was that since there would be ample work to keep a number of them fully occupied, it would be preferable to put them on a whole-time basis. When the matter was being discussed, it was expected that at least five full-time arbitrators would be required for England and two for Scotland, but the experience the last 11 years has shown that two full-time arbitrators had been more than competent to deal with the claims that had arisen under this Act in Scotland, and that in Scotland there has not been enough to occupy the time of a full-time arbitrator. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon been present last night when we discussed the
matter, he would have had it explained to him. The consequence was that £1,300 was being paid out annually in salary and expenses for a full-time arbitrator and, actually only 69 cases came before the arbitrator in the course of the year since the Act carne into operation. These cases actually cost £73 each to the Exchequer, and we have come to the conclusion that that is an expenditure of public money which could not be justified. I am not surprised at the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) objecting to our having effected a saving.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On the contrary, I began my speech by saying that I rejoiced at the saving, and my question was why a similar saving was not being effected for England.

Mr. ADAMSON: I would only point out that one day we are being criticised for our extravagance by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and another day when we propose a saving, all kinds of explanations are asked and all kinds of objections are raised. I hope that with the explanation which I have given on this point, hon. Gentlemen opposite will now allow us to get this Bill.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I must protest against the right hon. Gentleman's reference to me. I congratulated him on making some saving, and my objection was that he did not go far enough and appoint an efficient Englishman. The right hon. Gentleman should not suggest that I attack him as a wastrel and at the same time criticise any saving which he does make. I admit that he is improving and I hope that before I am finished with him he will be a great deal better.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Citation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [23rd February].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

CLASS VI.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."

CLASS V.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."

CLASS VII.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

CLASS II.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £62,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, asd other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; Relief of Refugees from the Near East; certain special Grants, including a Grant-in-Aid; Sundry Services arising out of the War; and a Loan to the European Commission of the Danube."

CLASS IX.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £246,990, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure arising out of Contracts dated 9th April, 1918, and 3rd March, 1922, entered into with the Zinc Producers' Association Proprietary, Limited, to give effect to agreements made in 1916 and 1917 for the purchase of Zinc Concentrates."

First and Second Resolutions agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will take this opportunity of correcting an obvious error in what he said the other night on this Vote? I If he will turn to Column 2228 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 25th February—and I am sure he will not want it to go uncorrected—he will see that he stated that money was apparently required to pay for paper on which to print the new Telephone Directory, which had not been printed and would not be printed before the end of the financial year. There must be some mistake. It has been printed, and it is now in course of being delivered to subscribers. [An HON. MEMBER: "The first half of it!"] The first half. According to what the hon. Gentleman said, it was not to be printed before the end of the year. Perhaps he will put the matter right, and assure us that he has taken enough money for this service and will not have to come back for another Supplementary Estimate before the end of the financial year.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am glad to have the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reminder that there was an inaccuracy. I am not sure whether I said that, but I was really answering a question asked by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) as to whether we got the money from the Post Office. I was endeavouring to answer the question by saying that we had to pay for the paper. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right in saying that the actual printing has already taken place. I must have made a mistake. If it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I no doubt said it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he has taken enough money?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, certainly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Fourth and Fifth Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [26th February].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

CLASS VIII.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £246,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in. course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services."

CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1929.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £348,771 11s. 8d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended 31st day of March, 1930:—



Amount to be Voted.



£
s.
d.


CLASS II.



Vote 2. Diplomatic and Consular Services
5,523
3
4


CLASS VI.



Vote 7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
74
3
1


CLASS VIII.



Vote 1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
907
15
2


Vote 2. Ministry of Pensions
342,266
10
1



£348,771
11
8"

Crass VI.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."

CLASS VIII.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for War Pensions and Allowances (including cost of Treatment) to Merchant Seamen and Fishermen and their Dependants and the Administrative Expenses connected therewith."

First and Second Resolutions agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time, and postponed.

Fourth Resolution agreed to.

Postponed Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.